On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 12:45 -0700, isaac jones wrote:

On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 14:04 +0200, Christophe Poucet wrote:

...

Hello,

Just a small request. Would it be feasible to tag the Haskell-prime list in a similar manner as Haskell-cafe?

I'd rather not. If you want to be able to filter, you can use the "Sender" field which will always be: Sender: haskell-prime-bounces@haskell.org

It's also got all the normal "list-id:" header which is the most reliable way to identify it (and indeed all other mailing lists I've ever seen). Many email progs have special support for filter rules based on the mailing list headers, eg evolution. Duncan

On 2006-09-02, Philippa Cowderoy wrote:

On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, isaac jones wrote:

...

On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 14:04 +0200, Christophe Poucet wrote:

...

Hello,

Just a small request. Would it be feasible to tag the Haskell-prime list in a similar manner as Haskell-cafe?

I'd rather not. If you want to be able to filter, you can use the "Sender" field which will always be: Sender: haskell-prime-bounces@haskell.org

This isn't really enough if you're scan-reading a pile of stuff - are there any particularly good reasons to avoid the tags? They're pretty much standard practice.

They take away valuable space that can be used for informative messages. If you want to filter it out, don't do it by hand, that's what computers are for. -- Aaron Denney -><-

On 2006-09-02, Philippa Cowderoy wrote:

On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, Aaron Denney wrote:

...

On 2006-09-02, Philippa Cowderoy wrote:

...

On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, isaac jones wrote:

...

On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 14:04 +0200, Christophe Poucet wrote:

...

Hello,

Just a small request. Would it be feasible to tag the Haskell-prime list in a similar manner as Haskell-cafe?

I'd rather not. If you want to be able to filter, you can use the "Sender" field which will always be: Sender: haskell-prime-bounces@haskell.org

This isn't really enough if you're scan-reading a pile of stuff - are there any particularly good reasons to avoid the tags? They're pretty much standard practice.

They take away valuable space that can be used for informative messages.

I rarely see a subject I can't read the whole of in a single line anyway, though.

Well, I've seen it happen on occasion.

...

If you want to filter it out, don't do it by hand, that's what computers are for.

That's not the problem, though. The occasional problem is not accidentally thinking "oh, that's spam" and deleting a post because you don't recognise the poster and the subject line looks vaguely spamlike. And the spammers have found ways of dealing with bayesian filters by now. If I whitelist and then scan through a spam folder once in a while that makes things even worse, because the proportion of spam in the spam folder is that much higher.

I misspoke -- I shouldn't have said "out". Send mailing list traffic to seperate mail folders, with seperate new mail indicators, and everything is golden. -- Aaron Denney -><-

Philippa Cowderoy wrote:

Not really, 99% of the non-spam mail I get's from mailing lists so it gives the same problem as having a spam folder. I also get better workflow with a single inbox at the moment.

You could also autofilter the mail to add the subject tags at your end. This is fairly simple to do using procmail+formail, and I'm sure other filter systems have similar facilities. (Me, I don't care one way or the other. If subject tags were not commonplace, I'd object, but the box is already open.)