On Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 07:35:34PM -0500, Rich Lafferty wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 06:42:40PM -0500, Tom Owad (owad_at_applefritter.com) wrote:
> > >I have to come out as vehemently opposed to this. I'm on a couple of lists
> > >that do this, and *all* it really achieves is reducing the number of
> > >visibie/useful characters in the Subject: header, and increasing the
> > >noise level.
> >
> > I agree; it is a bit of a nuisance. ClassicCmp gets so much traffic I'm
> > sure most of us have it automatically sorted.
> >
> > At worst, how about just '[C]'?
>
> Even that will cause a problem, since Majordomo appears to be too stupid
> to understand "Re:", and you end up with cascading "Re: [ClassicCMP]"
> all across the top.
>
> I am aware of no mail filters which only allow filtering on Subject:.
>
Well, strictly speaking, you could do this with procmail (aided and
abetted by a couple of other programs), but I'll bet the result wouldn't
be pretty.
*Nasty old fart mode on*
But my major objection, putting it perhaps a bit forcefully, is: Why should
*I* have to deal with garbage put there to make up for *someone else's* brain
dead, bletcherous MUA or someone else's lack of desire to learn how to use
what they've got? If your MUA can't filter and/or sort effectively,
JUNK IT! Don't ask everyone else to put up with extraneous garbage. GET
SOMETHING THAT WORKS! And learn how to use it! In the long run, you'll
be a lot happier, and certainly the people you deal with will be.
(hmm.. should I turn it off? Nah.)
--
Dann Lunsford The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil
dann_at_greycat.com is that men of good will do nothing. -- Cicero
Received on Sat Feb 05 2000 - 20:55:17 GMT