[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: subject line

Dan Zwell

9/2/2007 11:42:00 PM

Devi Web Development wrote:
> I don't know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
> [RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages? It's a
> fairly common practice on listserves.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney
> Devi Web Development
> Devi.WebMaster@gMail.com
>

Quoting http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/docs/l... :

It would increase the size of the Subject: line. This is a problem,
as it limits the amount of useful information that can be seen in the
Subject: line, making it harder to scan through a list of subject lines
looking for interesting subjects.

Mail can easily be filtered based on the "To:" line. This list has too
much volume not to be filtered (probably by everyone that uses it), so I
don't see an advantage to adding [Ruby]. Further, I don't want to give
up even six (really seven) characters that we can use to express
ourselves. Thoughts?

Dan
38 Answers

Russell Norris

9/2/2007 11:49:00 PM

0

for what it's worth, if you can filter yr emails by the "to" field,
they're all addressed to ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org and can be grouped
quite easily. at least via gmail for me. :)

RSL

On 9/2/07, Dan Zwell <dzwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> Devi Web Development wrote:
> > I don't know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
> > [RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages? It's a
> > fairly common practice on listserves.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------
> > Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney
> > Devi Web Development
> > Devi.WebMaster@gMail.com
> >
>
> Quoting http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/docs/l... :
>
> It would increase the size of the Subject: line. This is a problem,
> as it limits the amount of useful information that can be seen in the
> Subject: line, making it harder to scan through a list of subject lines
> looking for interesting subjects.
>
> Mail can easily be filtered based on the "To:" line. This list has too
> much volume not to be filtered (probably by everyone that uses it), so I
> don't see an advantage to adding [Ruby]. Further, I don't want to give
> up even six (really seven) characters that we can use to express
> ourselves. Thoughts?
>
> Dan
>
>

Florian Aßmann

9/3/2007 12:01:00 AM

0

I personally don't like a [Ruby]-tag in front of the subjects too.
I already have enough spam, don't need to spam the Mail itself...

I think most of relevant data is already in the Mail-Headers, don't need to add
stuff which isn't neccessary.


It's even more rubyish without tag, imho... :)

Regards
Florian

Terry Poulin

9/3/2007 3:46:00 PM

0

Dan Zwell wrote:
> Devi Web Development wrote:
>> I don't know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
>> [RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages? It's a
>> fairly common practice on listserves.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney
>> Devi Web Development
>> Devi.WebMaster@gMail.com
>>
>
> Quoting http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/docs/l... :
>
> It would increase the size of the Subject: line. This is a problem,
> as it limits the amount of useful information that can be seen in the
> Subject: line, making it harder to scan through a list of subject lines
> looking for interesting subjects.
>
> Mail can easily be filtered based on the "To:" line. This list has too
> much volume not to be filtered (probably by everyone that uses it), so I
> don't see an advantage to adding [Ruby]. Further, I don't want to give
> up even six (really seven) characters that we can use to express
> ourselves. Thoughts?
>
> Dan
>
>

I usually find my self with 50-200 messages each day in my INBOX from this
mailing list alone. My solution? Is I set my webmail to display messages in
threads and colour code them. So that every message in my inbox from this
mailing lists address is displayed in a Red highlight and neatly organized. It
helps both with seeing that it. 0.) A Ruby-Talk message, 1.) Who said what,
2.) replies and deletes, and 3.) Makes it faster to work through the messages.


The A [Ruby-Talk] prefix would be nice if you use mailx as your primary MUA
but most these days should support decent sorting, filtering, and highlighting
features. And those are much more useful for dealing with Volume then
prefixing the subject lines. On the topic of filtering mails, there is no need
to filter by Subject Line for that -> Just use the other headers.


My primary mail system is www.ippimail.com using Squirrel Mail for the web
interface. Best thing I've used since I used to use Mutt but without the
annoyance of creeps sending me fat E-Mails to my server box!

TerryP.


--

Email and shopping with the feelgood factor!
55% of income to good causes. http://www.ip...

Chad Perrin

9/3/2007 6:16:00 PM

0

On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:41:53AM +0900, Dan Zwell wrote:
> Devi Web Development wrote:
> >I don't know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
> >[RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all messages? It's a
> >fairly common practice on listserves.
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------------
> >Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney
> >Devi Web Development
> >Devi.WebMaster@gMail.com
> >
>
> Quoting http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/docs/l... :
>
> It would increase the size of the Subject: line. This is a problem,
> as it limits the amount of useful information that can be seen in the
> Subject: line, making it harder to scan through a list of subject lines
> looking for interesting subjects.
>
> Mail can easily be filtered based on the "To:" line. This list has too
> much volume not to be filtered (probably by everyone that uses it), so I
> don't see an advantage to adding [Ruby]. Further, I don't want to give
> up even six (really seven) characters that we can use to express
> ourselves. Thoughts?

Thoughts:

Not everyone filters ruby-talk into its own "folder" in a mail user
agent. Some of us prefer to have all incoming email appear in the same
inbox list, but want to be able to filter by eye.

Considering even the typical CLI-only terminal has an 80-character width,
I don't see how six characters is such a deal-breaker. There's something
wrong if people are sending 70+ character subject lines, anyway.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.ap... ]
MacUser, Nov. 1990: "There comes a time in the history of any project when
it becomes necessary to shoot the engineers and begin production."

Stefan Rusterholz

9/3/2007 6:20:00 PM

0

Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:41:53AM +0900, Dan Zwell wrote:
>> >
>> don't see an advantage to adding [Ruby]. Further, I don't want to give
>> up even six (really seven) characters that we can use to express
>> ourselves. Thoughts?
>
> Thoughts:
>
> Not everyone filters ruby-talk into its own "folder" in a mail user
> agent. Some of us prefer to have all incoming email appear in the same
> inbox list, but want to be able to filter by eye.
>
> Considering even the typical CLI-only terminal has an 80-character
> width,
> I don't see how six characters is such a deal-breaker. There's
> something
> wrong if people are sending 70+ character subject lines, anyway.

And your client of choice doesn't support rewriting the subject as a
filter?

Regards
Stefan
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

James Gray

9/3/2007 6:27:00 PM

0

On Sep 3, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:41:53AM +0900, Dan Zwell wrote:
>> Devi Web Development wrote:
>>> I don't know who would make this sort of decision, but could we put
>>> [RubyTalk] or [Ruby] or something at the beginning of all
>>> messages? It's a
>>> fairly common practice on listserves.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------
>>> Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney
>>> Devi Web Development
>>> Devi.WebMaster@gMail.com
>>>
>>
>> Quoting http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/docs/l... :
>>
>> It would increase the size of the Subject: line. This is a
>> problem,
>> as it limits the amount of useful information that can be seen in the
>> Subject: line, making it harder to scan through a list of subject
>> lines
>> looking for interesting subjects.
>>
>> Mail can easily be filtered based on the "To:" line. This list has
>> too
>> much volume not to be filtered (probably by everyone that uses
>> it), so I
>> don't see an advantage to adding [Ruby]. Further, I don't want to
>> give
>> up even six (really seven) characters that we can use to express
>> ourselves. Thoughts?
>
> Thoughts:
>
> Not everyone filters ruby-talk into its own "folder" in a mail user
> agent. Some of us prefer to have all incoming email appear in the
> same
> inbox list, but want to be able to filter by eye.

That's why I have my MUA color Ruby-Talk posts red. They stand out
just fine.

> Considering even the typical CLI-only terminal has an 80-character
> width,
> I don't see how six characters is such a deal-breaker. There's
> something
> wrong if people are sending 70+ character subject lines, anyway.

Do you also show the sender and the date received on that line? I
think you'll find that most MUA setups give far less than 80 subject
characters by default. Mine sure does, and it's not a terminal
application.

James Edward Gray II

Chad Perrin

9/3/2007 6:37:00 PM

0

On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 03:19:57AM +0900, Stefan Rusterholz wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:41:53AM +0900, Dan Zwell wrote:
> >> >
> >> don't see an advantage to adding [Ruby]. Further, I don't want to give
> >> up even six (really seven) characters that we can use to express
> >> ourselves. Thoughts?
> >
> > Thoughts:
> >
> > Not everyone filters ruby-talk into its own "folder" in a mail user
> > agent. Some of us prefer to have all incoming email appear in the same
> > inbox list, but want to be able to filter by eye.
> >
> > Considering even the typical CLI-only terminal has an 80-character
> > width,
> > I don't see how six characters is such a deal-breaker. There's
> > something
> > wrong if people are sending 70+ character subject lines, anyway.
>
> And your client of choice doesn't support rewriting the subject as a
> filter?

. . and you wouldn't complain if all my responses contained [RUBY] in
the subject line?

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.ap... ]
Amazon.com interview candidate: "When C++ is your hammer, everything starts
to look like your thumb."

Chad Perrin

9/3/2007 6:38:00 PM

0

On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 03:27:28AM +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >
> >Thoughts:
> >
> >Not everyone filters ruby-talk into its own "folder" in a mail user
> >agent. Some of us prefer to have all incoming email appear in the
> >same
> >inbox list, but want to be able to filter by eye.
>
> That's why I have my MUA color Ruby-Talk posts red. They stand out
> just fine.

That's nice for you. Others here are not you.


>
> >Considering even the typical CLI-only terminal has an 80-character
> >width,
> >I don't see how six characters is such a deal-breaker. There's
> >something
> >wrong if people are sending 70+ character subject lines, anyway.
>
> Do you also show the sender and the date received on that line? I
> think you'll find that most MUA setups give far less than 80 subject
> characters by default. Mine sure does, and it's not a terminal
> application.

How few, then? Why are you using an MUA that limits you to 20 characters
in viewable subject line? Doesn't that strike you as a little silly?

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.ap... ]
Brian K. Reid: "In computer science, we stand on each other's feet."

Joel VanderWerf

9/3/2007 6:41:00 PM

0

James Edward Gray II wrote:

> Do you also show the sender and the date received on that line? I think
> you'll find that most MUA setups give far less than 80 subject
> characters by default. Mine sure does, and it's not a terminal
> application.

Yup. In my thunderbird setup, with columns for subject, sender, date,
size, and some flags, I see only about 45-50 characters of subject. I'd
lose 12 them to "[RUBY-TALK] ".... I was very glad to see the old
"[ruby-talk:NNNNN]" go away a few years ago.

The message ID was nice for references, though. I know it's still there
in the headers, but thunderbird has no option (AFAIK) to display just
that _one_ additional header field.

--
vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407

James Gray

9/3/2007 6:55:00 PM

0

On Sep 3, 2007, at 1:38 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 03:27:28AM +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
>> On Sep 3, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
>>>
>>> Thoughts:
>>>
>>> Not everyone filters ruby-talk into its own "folder" in a mail user
>>> agent. Some of us prefer to have all incoming email appear in the
>>> same
>>> inbox list, but want to be able to filter by eye.
>>
>> That's why I have my MUA color Ruby-Talk posts red. They stand out
>> just fine.
>
> That's nice for you. Others here are not you.

That's an interesting choice of words since your entire argument for
the addition is based on your specific situation. As you say, I am
not you.

James Edward Gray II