Group prefix on messages
Fernando Meyer
Could someone ( managers ) add the [jvm-languages] as prefix for every message, I think it's better for organization/classification.
as well we can quickly spot some interesting message between all those unnecessary emails :)
regards
--
Fernando Meyer http://fmeyer.org
JBoss Rules Core Developer
fern...@fmeyer.org
Daniel Green
Brian Schlining
I second this with the addition that it be [jvm] instead
On Nov 30, 2007 6:35 PM, Fernando Meyer <fmca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could someone ( managers ) add the [jvm-languages] as prefix for every
> message, I think it's better for organization/classification.
> as well we can quickly spot some interesting message between all those
> unnecessary emails :)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Brian Schlining
John Cowan
and don't want it run off the right-hand edge with junk at the left, especially
if they already filter all jvm-languages traffic into a folder.
[jvml] at most.
--
GMail doesn't have rotating .sigs, but you can see mine at
http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/signatures
Randall R Schulz
> Hi,
>
> Could someone ( managers ) add the [jvm-languages] as prefix for
> every message, I think it's better for organization/classification.
> as well we can quickly spot some interesting message between all
> those unnecessary emails :)
Oh, come on.
Use the List-Id: header for filtering. Munging the Subject is
gratuitous, gross and entirely uncalled-for.
> regards
Randall Schulz
Ted Neward
way. Whatever makes the rest happy. :-)
Ted Neward
Java, .NET, XML Services
Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing
http://www.tedneward.com
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date:
> 11/30/2007 12:12 PM
>
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: 11/30/2007
12:12 PM
Alex Lam S.L.
criterion, and so far it's been working like a charm.
Alex.
David Pollak
lift, the secure, simple, powerful web framework http://liftweb.net
Collaborative Task Management http://much4.us
Alex Blewitt
filtered based on a 'to:jvm-la...@googlegroups.com', which then
applies a label and archives it. Having a subject doesn't give you
anything extra that you can't get from automatic filters applying
labels.
Alex.
Attila Szegedi
real subject of the message. Any decent mail client will allow you to
sort messages into subfolders, color code them, etc. based on the
value of the To or List-ID header.
Attila.
Michael Campbell
now. <shrug>
Richard Warburton
Richard Warburton
Erik Engbrecht
Daniel Green
prefix would provide clarity. Don't make the assumption that everyone
is able to use the gmail web interface. So if some will be helped, as
many responders to this post have claimed, the question becomes, would
titles prefixed by [jvm] degrade quality for users who do not want it?
Charles Oliver Nutter
> For some users in certain environments/clients it is clear that a
> prefix would provide clarity. Don't make the assumption that everyone
> is able to use the gmail web interface. So if some will be helped, as
> many responders to this post have claimed, the question becomes, would
> titles prefixed by [jvm] degrade quality for users who do not want it?
I think a short prefix is acceptable, and the only arguments against it
are for space/clutter reasons. For folks that don't filter mail, I know
it can be irritating to not have something in the title to visually
distinguish. So I'll add a prefix of [jvm-l] to mail ([jvm] seemed a bit
too general).
- Charlie
Charles Oliver Nutter
> For some users in certain environments/clients it is clear that a
> prefix would provide clarity. Don't make the assumption that everyone
> is able to use the gmail web interface. So if some will be helped, as
> many responders to this post have claimed, the question becomes, would
> titles prefixed by [jvm] degrade quality for users who do not want it?
And here's a test.
- Charlie
Randall R Schulz
> For some users in certain environments/clients it is clear that a
> prefix would provide clarity. Don't make the assumption that everyone
> is able to use the gmail web interface.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with GMail. Any even half-way capable
mail client can filter on arbitrary header fields, regardless of
whether or not they're typically shown in the message display. They are
able to accommodate a list identification outside the Subject: header.
In fact, if you think about the word itself, it is completely
irrelevant to the forum on which any given message is posted.
> So if some will be helped, as many responders to this post have
> claimed, the question becomes, would titles prefixed by [jvm] degrade
> quality for users who do not want it?
Of course it would. It's an endlessly repeated piece of entirely
redundant information, at least as far as Subject: headers are
concerned.
While there may be a small fraction of users who subscribe to only a
handful of lists, those who subscribe to many naturally create separate
folders for each subscription. For these people, adulterated Subject:
headers are just that: adulterated; contaminated; befouled.
I don't think list administrators should cater to users of impoverished
mail clients or to users who cannot figure out how to use the
capabilities their mail clients make available to them.
Randall Schulz
David Pollak
It has nothing whatsoever to do with GMail. Any even half-way capable
On Saturday 01 December 2007 14:31, Daniel Green wrote:
> For some users in certain environments/clients it is clear that a
> prefix would provide clarity. Don't make the assumption that everyone
> is able to use the gmail web interface.
mail client can filter on arbitrary header fields, regardless of
whether or not they're typically shown in the message display. They are
able to accommodate a list identification outside the Subject: header.
In fact, if you think about the word itself, it is completely
irrelevant to the forum on which any given message is posted.Of course it would. It's an endlessly repeated piece of entirely
> So if some will be helped, as many responders to this post have
> claimed, the question becomes, would titles prefixed by [jvm] degrade
> quality for users who do not want it?
redundant information, at least as far as Subject: headers are
concerned.
While there may be a small fraction of users who subscribe to only a
handful of lists, those who subscribe to many naturally create separate
folders for each subscription. For these people, adulterated Subject:
headers are just that: adulterated; contaminated; befouled.
I subscribe to dozens of lists and manage 5. I've also be participating in discussion lists on the Internet since 1989. I've used more than 2 dozen mail and news readers over the years. I've developed my own workflow and my own preferences.
I prefer to use GMail for reading discussion groups. It's available in a near uniform format on all my devices (Linux, Mac, Windows, iPhone, eee PC, etc.) It manages conversations very well. I find it better than almost all my mail clients (except perhaps Thunderbird) for managing communications.
I am not a fan of putting different communications in different folders. I find that I can monitor different discussions most effectively if they are all in my in-box, but with a small indicator of which group the discussion is part of. I can quickly scan the titles and make the decision to dive deeper or archive. I have tried the "different folders for different groups" strategy in the past and I don't like it. I wind up delaying my reading of important stuff and the context switch is costly for me.
These are my habits and behaviors. They are different from the optimal habits that other people have developed over the years. This does not make me or someone with other habits a better or worse person. If there was universal agreement on the matter, the universal choice with be enforced by discussion group systems.
I don't think I'm stupid. I don't think I'm "set in my ways" as I try different Internet clients on a regular basis and wind up "changing" every 3 or 4 years. I do think that I'm able to articulate why I have my preferences.
Hopefully, we can turn this discussion back to peoples' preferences without a further devolution into ad homenims.
I don't think list administrators should cater to users of impoverished
mail clients or to users who cannot figure out how to use the
capabilities their mail clients make available to them.
I know Charlie's been around the block about as many times as I have... and he's generally more diplomatic than I am. I have weighed in with my vote as have others. I expect that Charlie will listen and make an appropriate decision. I endorse and support any decision he makes and I encourage the rest of the list to do the same.
Thanks,
David
Randall Schulz
Alex Blewitt
> I am not a fan of putting different communications in different folders. I
> find that I can monitor different discussions most effectively if they are
> all in my in-box, but with a small indicator of which group the discussion
> is part of.
Don't take this as trying to change your behaviour; but are you aware
that you can use a search of 'is:unread' in GMail which shows all
unread mails across all folders? I'm subscribed to a number of mailing
lists that filter themselves automatically, and I can easily collate
all the unread ones together using that search. The label then tells
me which one they belong to.
Alex.
David Pollak
Nifty!
Thanks!
Alex.
John Wilson
> I subscribe to dozens of lists and manage 5. I've also be participating in
> discussion lists on the Internet since 1989. I've used more than 2 dozen
> mail and news readers over the years. I've developed my own workflow and my
> own preferences.
>
> I prefer to use GMail for reading discussion groups. It's available in a
> near uniform format on all my devices (Linux, Mac, Windows, iPhone, eee PC,
> etc.) It manages conversations very well. I find it better than almost all
> my mail clients (except perhaps Thunderbird) for managing communications.
>
> I am not a fan of putting different communications in different folders. I
> find that I can monitor different discussions most effectively if they are
> all in my in-box, but with a small indicator of which group the discussion
> is part of. I can quickly scan the titles and make the decision to dive
> deeper or archive. I have tried the "different folders for different
> groups" strategy in the past and I don't like it. I wind up delaying my
> reading of important stuff and the context switch is costly for me.
>
> These are my habits and behaviors. They are different from the optimal
> habits that other people have developed over the years. This does not make
> me or someone with other habits a better or worse person. If there was
> universal agreement on the matter, the universal choice with be enforced by
> discussion group systems.
Firstly - apologies for adding to the noise.
If you have a Gmail filter which labels mail from this list by looking
at the headers but does not archive it then the mail will appear in
your inbox with an indication that it is from this list. The latest
version if Gmail even lets you choose the colour of the label. You can
collapse the pane which shows labels if you find that distracting.
So you can, effectively, use Gmail to add a group prefix of your own
to arbitrary messages.
Best Wishes
John Wilson