Mailing List Archive

On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 01:49:15AM -0600, Matthew Hunter <matthew@infodancer.org> wrote:
> 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...

Apologies for the broken threading on the original, folks.

--
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

Whoohoo! Tell us what we win, bob!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Mason" <jm@jmason.org>
To: <SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 1:09 AM
Subject: Subject tag poll results


> 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!)
>
> --j.
>

I belong to several mailing lists that give me personally the choice to turn on subject tagging or leave it off. Perhaps the listserver for this list could be set up the same way. Personally, I pretty much need this option, since I use Outlook Depress to read mail, and it has, um, "rather poor" header filtering capabilities. Other people that can filter on X- headers might not want or need the option.

Another option might be to insure that the mail from the list claims to be from the list, rather than directly from the poster. The would let me filter on the From: header.

Loren

-----Original Message-----
From: JRiley <jriley@spamfighter.org>
Sent: Feb 6, 2004 5:56 AM
To: SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org, Justin Mason <jm@jmason.org>
Subject: Re: Subject tag poll results

Whoohoo! Tell us what we win, bob!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Mason" <jm@jmason.org>
To: <SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 1:09 AM
Subject: Subject tag poll results


> 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!)
>
> --j.
>

why does anyone need extra subject tagging to filter ML's messages?

i generally just sort them by "to" or "cc" containing:
"SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org" (for this ML)

works like a charm on any ML i've subscribed.

is it that hard?


Loren Wilton wrote:
> I belong to several mailing lists that give me personally the choice to turn on subject tagging or leave it off. Perhaps the listserver for this list could be set up the same way. Personally, I pretty much need this option, since I use Outlook Depress to read mail, and it has, um, "rather poor" header filtering capabilities. Other people that can filter on X- headers might not want or need the option.
>
> Another option might be to insure that the mail from the list claims to be from the list, rather than directly from the poster. The would let me filter on the From: header.
>
> Loren
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JRiley <jriley@spamfighter.org>
> Sent: Feb 6, 2004 5:56 AM
> To: SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org, Justin Mason <jm@jmason.org>
> Subject: Re: Subject tag poll results
>
> Whoohoo! Tell us what we win, bob!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Justin Mason" <jm@jmason.org>
> To: <SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 1:09 AM
> Subject: Subject tag poll results
>
>
>
>>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!)
>>
>>--j.
>>
>
>
>

smae thought about the originator from me ;) *grin*

but i would even say that filtering by subject tag is a stupid idea.
if someone is replying directly that mail will be sorted into the ML
folder instead of the normal inbox where it would belong IMO.


Gary Smith wrote:
> Yes, for some it's a difficult concept. :) I'm on a dozen lists and
> haven't had a problem. The tag made it simpler when people replied
> directly to me only but that wasn't a problem either. I think the
> originator of this is just lazy or inept.
>
> Gary Smith
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralf Vitasek [mailto:vitasek@tqsoft.de]
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 7:02 AM
> To: SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Subject tag poll results
>
> why does anyone need extra subject tagging to filter ML's messages?
>
> i generally just sort them by "to" or "cc" containing:
> "SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org" (for this ML)
>
> works like a charm on any ML i've subscribed.
>
> is it that hard?
>
>

At 01:50 AM 2/6/04 -0600, Matthew Hunter wrote:
> > 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...
>
>Apologies for the broken threading on the original, folks.

He came up with 22 because he was only adding the first "No" category from
the web and missed the second one.... 13+9 = 22. A shortfall of exactly 15
votes....

Note to self: when reviewing bug reports, always double-check Justin's math ;)

And this works with us Outlook Express (top posters) too!
FVGT ;)~


Ralf Vitasek wrote:
> why does anyone need extra subject tagging to filter ML's messages?
>
> i generally just sort them by "to" or "cc" containing:
> "SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org" (for this ML)
>
> works like a charm on any ML i've subscribed.
>
> is it that hard?
>
>
> Loren Wilton wrote:
>> I belong to several mailing lists that give me personally the choice to
turn
>> on subject tagging or leave it off. Perhaps the listserver for this list
>> could be set up the same way. Personally, I pretty much need this
option,
>> since I use Outlook Depress to read mail, and it has, um, "rather poor"
>> header filtering capabilities. Other people that can filter on X-
headers
>> might not want or need the option.
>>
>> Another option might be to insure that the mail from the list claims to
be
>> from the list, rather than directly from the poster. The would let me
filter
>> on the From: header.
>>
>> Loren
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: JRiley <jriley@spamfighter.org>
>> Sent: Feb 6, 2004 5:56 AM
>> To: SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org, Justin Mason <jm@jmason.org>
>> Subject: Re: Subject tag poll results
>>
>> Whoohoo! Tell us what we win, bob!
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Justin Mason" <jm@jmason.org>
>> To: <SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org>
>> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 1:09 AM
>> Subject: Subject tag poll results
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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!)
>>>
>>> --j.

I really don't understand why anyone would object to adding [SA] to the
beginning of the subject line. This list has always had a tag on the
subject line. And by having that tag it is easier to cruise through the
hundreds of emails I get to decide what I want I want to read and what
get's deleted.

I have enough to do without having to setup filters and folders and change
how I handle my mail.

Since adding four little characters can't possibly harm anyone I believe
this falls under the category of 'majority rule but minority rights'.


At 10:38 AM 2/6/2004, you wrote:
>And this works with us Outlook Express (top posters) too!
>FVGT ;)~
>
>
>Ralf Vitasek wrote:
> > why does anyone need extra subject tagging to filter ML's messages?
> >
> > i generally just sort them by "to" or "cc" containing:
> > "SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org" (for this ML)
> >
> > works like a charm on any ML i've subscribed.
> >
> > is it that hard?
> >
> >
> > Loren Wilton wrote:
> >> I belong to several mailing lists that give me personally the choice to
>turn
> >> on subject tagging or leave it off. Perhaps the listserver for this list
> >> could be set up the same way. Personally, I pretty much need this
>option,
> >> since I use Outlook Depress to read mail, and it has, um, "rather poor"
> >> header filtering capabilities. Other people that can filter on X-
>headers
> >> might not want or need the option.
> >>
> >> Another option might be to insure that the mail from the list claims to
>be
> >> from the list, rather than directly from the poster. The would let me
>filter
> >> on the From: header.
> >>
> >> Loren
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: JRiley <jriley@spamfighter.org>
> >> Sent: Feb 6, 2004 5:56 AM
> >> To: SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org, Justin Mason <jm@jmason.org>
> >> Subject: Re: Subject tag poll results
> >>
> >> Whoohoo! Tell us what we win, bob!
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Justin Mason" <jm@jmason.org>
> >> To: <SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org>
> >> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 1:09 AM
> >> Subject: Subject tag poll results
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> 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!)
> >>>
> >>> --j.

Best Regards,

Jeff Koch, Intersessions

Ditto this.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Koch" <jeffkoch@intersessions.com>
To: <SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Subject tag poll results


>
> I really don't understand why anyone would object to adding [SA] to the
> beginning of the subject line. This list has always had a tag on the
> subject line. And by having that tag it is easier to cruise through the
> hundreds of emails I get to decide what I want I want to read and what
> get's deleted.
>
> I have enough to do without having to setup filters and folders and change
> how I handle my mail.
>
> Since adding four little characters can't possibly harm anyone I believe
> this falls under the category of 'majority rule but minority rights'.
>
>
> At 10:38 AM 2/6/2004, you wrote:
> >And this works with us Outlook Express (top posters) too!
> >FVGT ;)~
> >
> >
> >Ralf Vitasek wrote:
> > > why does anyone need extra subject tagging to filter ML's messages?
> > >
> > > i generally just sort them by "to" or "cc" containing:
> > > "SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org" (for this ML)
> > >
> > > works like a charm on any ML i've subscribed.
> > >
> > > is it that hard?
> > >
> > >
> > > Loren Wilton wrote:
> > >> I belong to several mailing lists that give me personally the choice
to
> >turn
> > >> on subject tagging or leave it off. Perhaps the listserver for this
list
> > >> could be set up the same way. Personally, I pretty much need this
> >option,
> > >> since I use Outlook Depress to read mail, and it has, um, "rather
poor"
> > >> header filtering capabilities. Other people that can filter on X-
> >headers
> > >> might not want or need the option.
> > >>
> > >> Another option might be to insure that the mail from the list claims
to
> >be
> > >> from the list, rather than directly from the poster. The would let me
> >filter
> > >> on the From: header.
> > >>
> > >> Loren
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: JRiley <jriley@spamfighter.org>
> > >> Sent: Feb 6, 2004 5:56 AM
> > >> To: SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org, Justin Mason
<jm@jmason.org>
> > >> Subject: Re: Subject tag poll results
> > >>
> > >> Whoohoo! Tell us what we win, bob!
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Justin Mason" <jm@jmason.org>
> > >> To: <SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org>
> > >> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 1:09 AM
> > >> Subject: Subject tag poll results
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> 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!)
> > >>>
> > >>> --j.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jeff Koch, Intersessions
>
>
>

> I really don't understand why anyone would object to adding
> [SA] to the
> beginning of the subject line. This list has always had a tag on the
> subject line. And by having that tag it is easier to cruise
> through the
> hundreds of emails I get to decide what I want I want to read
> and what get's deleted.

Well, the problem here is that I use Outlook and it doesn't seem to be
able to sort by subject correctly when the subjects come in different
forms like:

[sa] subject
Re: [sa] subject
[sa] Re: subject
Re[2]: [sa] subject
[sa] Re[2]: subject

I think it's the ones with [sa] in front of "Re:" that screw it up. It
makes it very difficult to follow a thread when the messages are all
over the place.

Bret

If you step back and look at this whole discussion of tag vs. no tag, I
think it is easy to see why we will never get passed catching more then 99%
spam :)

It doesn't hurt anyone if it is there. Put it there and move on.

--Chris

OE users have several options.
I typically move messages containing [SA] in the subject to a folder.
at present I move messages that contain the spamassassin address in either the To or CC field., of course, I'm using GroupWise at present so its just the same.


>>> "Bret Miller" <bret.miller@wcg.org> 02/06/04 11:59AM >>>
> I really don't understand why anyone would object to adding
> [SA] to the
> beginning of the subject line. This list has always had a tag on the
> subject line. And by having that tag it is easier to cruise
> through the
> hundreds of emails I get to decide what I want I want to read
> and what get's deleted.

Well, the problem here is that I use Outlook and it doesn't seem to be
able to sort by subject correctly when the subjects come in different
forms like:

[sa] subject
Re: [sa] subject
[sa] Re: subject
Re[2]: [sa] subject
[sa] Re[2]: subject

I think it's the ones with [sa] in front of "Re:" that screw it up. It
makes it very difficult to follow a thread when the messages are all
over the place.

Bret

Without a tag, it's fully alphabetic. So the other day when I was
looking for thread "Joe Jobbing countermeasures" in a Postfix discussion
list, I sorted the 40,000 messages by subject, hit the [J] key, and I
was there. Rather than having to scroll through looking for
[Postfix-Users]Joe Jobbing.

That's why I like it. I can't do that with lists that prepend a [tag].
Besides, I subscribe public folders to most lists, and the others I just
make the rules by TO: or CC: and they *always* work. And I can go into
a folder with 50k messages and jump to the thread I want in <2 seconds.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Koch [mailto:jeffkoch@intersessions.com]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 10:29 AM
To: SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Subject tag poll results


I really don't understand why anyone would object to adding [SA] to the
beginning of the subject line.

That assumes somebody didn't use 'How do I stop Job Jobbing' as a subject
line. You should be grepping the subject line not sorting it - and having
an [SA] tag won't interfere with a grep.


At 12:20 PM 2/6/2004, Tom Meunier wrote:
>Without a tag, it's fully alphabetic. So the other day when I was
>looking for thread "Joe Jobbing countermeasures" in a Postfix discussion
>list, I sorted the 40,000 messages by subject, hit the [J] key, and I
>was there. Rather than having to scroll through looking for
>[Postfix-Users]Joe Jobbing.
>
>That's why I like it. I can't do that with lists that prepend a [tag].
>Besides, I subscribe public folders to most lists, and the others I just
>make the rules by TO: or CC: and they *always* work. And I can go into
>a folder with 50k messages and jump to the thread I want in <2 seconds.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Koch [mailto:jeffkoch@intersessions.com]
>Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 10:29 AM
>To: SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Subject tag poll results
>
>
>I really don't understand why anyone would object to adding [SA] to the
>beginning of the subject line.

Best Regards,

Jeff Koch, Intersessions

I object to the prepending. I have a small monitor and bad eyes. I have
800 pixels of horizontal space and every pixel counts. The [SA] uses five
characters' worth of vertical space of the Subject tag, which means I see
that much less of the subject.

This is not academic. There's already the wasted RE:/FW:/ stuff to deal
with. This all adds up. "RE: [SATalk] " is thirteen characters (counting
the trailing space). Counting spaced used by the trailing "..." that
Outlook throws in, I have about 20-25 characters' worth of usable Subject:
width - using up half of that with a prefix is a waste.

I subscribe to many lists and use the List-Id: header to filter them into
different folders when I can. To/Cc recipient filtering works for the rest.

Postpending would be fine with me.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Koch [mailto:jeffkoch@intersessions.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 1:00 PM
> To: Tom Meunier; SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Subject tag poll results
>
>
>
> That assumes somebody didn't use 'How do I stop Job Jobbing'
> as a subject
> line. You should be grepping the subject line not sorting it
> - and having
> an [SA] tag won't interfere with a grep.
>
>
> At 12:20 PM 2/6/2004, Tom Meunier wrote:
> >Without a tag, it's fully alphabetic. So the other day when I was
> >looking for thread "Joe Jobbing countermeasures" in a
> Postfix discussion
> >list, I sorted the 40,000 messages by subject, hit the [J] key, and I
> >was there. Rather than having to scroll through looking for
> >[Postfix-Users]Joe Jobbing.
> >
> >That's why I like it. I can't do that with lists that
> prepend a [tag].
> >Besides, I subscribe public folders to most lists, and the
> others I just
> >make the rules by TO: or CC: and they *always* work. And I
> can go into
> >a folder with 50k messages and jump to the thread I want in
> <2 seconds.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Jeff Koch [mailto:jeffkoch@intersessions.com]
> >Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 10:29 AM
> >To: SpamAssassin-users@incubator.apache.org
> >Subject: Re: Subject tag poll results
> >
> >
> >I really don't understand why anyone would object to adding
> [SA] to the
> >beginning of the subject line.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Jeff Koch, Intersessions
>
>

> I object to the prepending. I have a small monitor and bad eyes. I have
> 800 pixels of horizontal space and every pixel counts. The [SA] uses five
> characters' worth of vertical space of the Subject tag, which means I see
> that much less of the subject.

http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=458115

http://www.getodd.com/stuf/stupid/eyetest/eyetest.html

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 11:29:09 -0500, Jeff Koch <jeffkoch@intersessions.com> writes:

> I really don't understand why anyone would object to adding [SA] to
> the beginning of the subject line.

Four reasons:

#1: Its not necessary. Just about any client allows filtering to
seperate folders.

#2: It and 'Re:' can get into wars: 'Re: [SA] Re: [SA] ...'.

#3: It can lead to confusion because a private response would
include such a tag unless the author explicitly removed it.

#4: Clients that put an entire message on one line like Pine and
others may only reserve a 20-35 columns. A '[SA] ' tag consumes 5 of
those, potentially 25% of the subject line. '[SA] Re: ' consumes 8.

> This list has always had a tag on the subject line.

Not for me. I have my client both remove the tag that used to be there
(all 9 characters of it) and also filter messages to a seperate folder.

> I have enough to do without having to setup filters and folders and
> change how I handle my mail.

Here's a tip: Two rules:

Precedence: bulk ---> Bulk
Precedence: list ---> Bulk

Virtually every mailing list has this header. I use this to keep new
or infrequent mailing lists from cluttering my main inbox. Most bulky
mail lists already go into their own folder.

> Since adding four little characters can't possibly harm anyone I
> believe this falls under the category of 'majority rule but minority
> rights'.

Interesting line of argument. Replace 'characters' with 'emails' and
you're quoting spammers.

Scott

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:15:33 -0600, "JRiley" <jriley@spamfighter.org> writes:

> > I object to the prepending. I have a small monitor and bad eyes. I have
> > 800 pixels of horizontal space and every pixel counts. The [SA] uses five
> > characters' worth of vertical space of the Subject tag, which means I see
> > that much less of the subject.
>
> http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=458115

You supply the credit card number and I'm sure that Matthew will
happily supply the shipping address.

Scott