Mailing List Archive: list order is a chaos :-(

list order is a chaos :-(

Feb 5, 2004, 10:33 AM

Post #1 of 5 (1419 views)

The quality of content on this list is great reading it is really difficult.

As Jens Benecke already mentioned PLEASE use References: and In-Reply-To:
headers (or fix your mail client). Answers are scattered around with lots
of new subjects and not threaded after the original postings. This makes
it really hard to follow the discussions. I am reading lots of lists and
this is the first one with this problem. What makes SA so special? :-)

Thanks,
Andy.

--
o _ _ _
------- __o __o /\_ _ \\o (_)\__/o (_) -o)
----- _`\<,_ _`\<,_ _>(_) (_)/<_ \_| \ _|/' \/ /\\
---- (_)/ (_) (_)/ (_) (_) (_) (_) (_)' _\o_ _\_v
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Two wrongs don't make a right,
but three lefts do." -- Charles Barilleau

Re: list order is a chaos :-( [ In reply to ]

satalk at nacnud

Feb 5, 2004, 11:54 AM

Post #2 of 5 (1374 views)

Permalink

On Thursday 05 February 2004 17:33, Andy Spiegl wrote:

> it really hard to follow the discussions. I am reading lots of lists and
> this is the first one with this problem. What makes SA so special? :-)

Actually, I've noticed that the biggest criminal for this is Outlook /
Exchange. The client strips all references etc, and trashes threading.

Re: list order is a chaos :-( [ In reply to ]

apthorpe+sa at cynistar

Feb 5, 2004, 12:52 PM

Post #3 of 5 (1364 views)

Permalink

Hi,

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Andy Spiegl wrote:

> The quality of content on this list is great reading it is really difficult.
>
> As Jens Benecke already mentioned PLEASE use References: and In-Reply-To:
> headers (or fix your mail client). Answers are scattered around with lots
> of new subjects and not threaded after the original postings. This makes
> it really hard to follow the discussions. I am reading lots of lists and
> this is the first one with this problem. What makes SA so special? :-)

Dunno. Must be something in the water[1].

Sylpheed and Sylpheed-claws both have a 'View | Sort | Attract by Subject'
option which helps restore order to the list. Both are free,
cross-platform, featureful, and with the added bonus of not rendering HTML
mail.

-- Bob

[1] Probably related to what interferes with people's ability to trim
posts, place replies such that context is apparent, or read the FAQ, the
list archives, or TFM before posting. Somehow flames are kept to a
minimum...

Re: list order is a chaos :-( [ In reply to ]

mike at zanker

Feb 5, 2004, 11:22 PM

Post #4 of 5 (1369 views)

Permalink

On 05 February 2004 18:33 +0100 Andy Spiegl
<spamassassin.andy@spiegl.de> wrote:

> The quality of content on this list is great reading it is really
> difficult.
>
> As Jens Benecke already mentioned PLEASE use References: and
> In-Reply-To: headers (or fix your mail client). Answers are
> scattered around with lots of new subjects and not threaded after the
> original postings. This makes it really hard to follow the
> discussions. I am reading lots of lists and this is the first one
> with this problem. What makes SA so special? :-)

I find that lists with a high proportion of so-called mail admins are
the worst (seriously). The MailScanner list is also quite bad.

What also doesn't help is people who reply to someone else's e-mail and
start a new topic - that really screws up threading.

Mike.

Re: list order is a chaos :-( [ In reply to ]

matthew at infodancer

Feb 6, 2004, 12:49 AM

Post #5 of 5 (1361 views)

Permalink

> OK, the results are in...
>
> from the web, we have:
>
> No, but if you must put [SAusers] at start of line 22.41 % (13)
> No, but if you must put [SAusers] at end of line 25.86 % (15)
> Yes, I prefer [SAusers] at start of line 41.38 % (24)
> Yes, I prefer [SAusers] at end of line 0.00 % (0)
> I don't care 6.90 % (4)
> Prepare for Armageddon! 3.45 % (2)
>
> and by mail, we have:
>
> No: 9
> Yes: 1
>
> that means a total of
>
> No: 22
> Yes: 25
>
> so the yesses have it. (damn!)

Yes: 24 + 0 + 1 = 25
No: 13 + 15 + 9 ?= 22

I don't like your math.

Yes: 24 + 0 + 1 = 25
No: 13 + 15 + 9 = 37

I like mine better.

I'm not sure exactly how you managed to come up with 22...

--
Matthew Hunter (matthew@infodancer.org)
Public Key: http://matthew.infodancer.org/public_key.txt
Homepage: http://matthew.infodancer.org/index.jsp
Politics: http://www.triggerfinger.org/index.jsp

Mailing List Archive

Mailing List Archive

Attached Files: