On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, David W. Tamkin wrote:
> Michael, your contentment with getting it on his own copies is refreshing.
Thank you. There was never any intent to enforce the subject prefix on
all subscribers. It is unfortunate that prominent list personalities
misunderstood my request in that way. Chuq and I have reached an
understanding and have declared a truce. :)
I run a list or two, so I am sensitive to that issue. I researched the
prefix setting by first requesting help documents from the Majordomo
server. Because the documentation shows that it is a per-user setting,
there didn't seem to be any harm in setting the feature, noticing that it
didn't work, realizing that it probably was not defined for the list, then
asking the list owner to define one.
When I didn't hear back from the list owner, I thought it might be a
policy issue, so I made the request here on the list, figuring that either
a list co-owner would step up to the task, or that people who knew better
would be able to enlighten me as to why there was no subject prefix.
Although I now see that I should have, I didn't think that a list of list
owners would require me to pad my request with assurances that my request
would not negatively impact *their* experience on this list, and would not
seek to enforce changes to *all* subscribers. Frankly, I thought this
list was more mature and knowledgable about that sort of thing, given the
authoritative posture of many of the frequent participants.
> If the list software didn't support it as an option, the solution to
> that is to set up a filter that catches your incoming copies of the
> list's distribu- tions by the Sender: header and then adds the tag.
My MUA (PC-Pine) does not support altering the content of messages in the
way you describe. Yes, your suggestion is certainly worth implementing if
> | That's not an MUA problem. That's an attention deficit problem. Dare to
> | suggest an MUA that solves that problem?
> Surely there are MUAs that call one's attention to new mail in other folders.
Yes, there are. Outlook and Outlook Express are two of them. I use both
for other purposes, but I use Pine because I have almost 10 years of
mailbox archives in that plaintext format. If I started using Outlook or
OE for my daily non-work mail, I would then have two incompatible data
stores - one would not be able to search the other.