list subject

[Les Mikesell]

Lamar Owen wrote:

>> Where likewise the only place I've ever seen complaints are the ones
>> that don't adjust the reply-to, yet the complaints are always met with
>> 'it's morally wrong to do that..'.
> 
> I've seen both; I run several lists here, and I have had more requests to drop 
> the 'reply-to: list' option than to add it back in.

Must be different lists.  I can understand wanting to default to 
off-list replies on certain topics, but not for technical lists.  And I 
count the complaints from people who don't like the CC: that everyone 
gets when the reply-to isn't adjusted back to the list and you have to 
reply-all to make it work at all as being in favor of the re-write.

>  Again: it's up to the 
> list owners, and no one else.

I haven't demanded that anyone change - just pointed out good reasons 
for doing so.

>> Doesn't that mean you have to jump around in the folders whenever a new
>> message comes in or you want to reply to something?  
> 
> Let me recast that: it means rather than have all new incoming messages 
> obscure the really important non-list incoming messages, I have really 
> important e-mail come into a pretty clean inbox, and when I have a break 
> (like right now) I can, in a subject-oriented manner, read and reply.  I find 
> it to be much more efficient to dispose of 60-100 messages in a row on the 
> same subject than to have them all interspersed in my inbox, which needs to 
> stay clean so that important messages get quick dispositions.

Oh - I use different accounts completely for work/home/list related 
stuff but I want the lists all in the same spot.

>> I don't have time 
>> for that.
> 
> I wonder what the statistics for all your replies to this list and the CentOS 
> list would say about your time availability.  Or mine, for that matter.

Mine might indicate that I don't waste a lot of time configuring my mail 
client - or that I am not tied to a single location or client for 
reading/replies.

>>> And I'm getting ready to clean
>>> it out; the archive will likely be left with less than 1,000 messages
>>> that have enough meat to be considered worthy of keeping around.
> 
>> That's why I send it all through gmail...
> 
> What does gmail have to do with the S/N ratio of this list (note that the 
> 16,000 messages I received in the last month did not include spam, of which 
> over 100,000 messages were dropped)?

The space/size (and spam) becomes someone else's problem, and the way 
I'm using it now (POP to an intermediate IMAP server) I can delete my 
copy as I go but could still go back with the web interface to search 
for anything if it matters later (they 'archive' it as downloaded, 
instead of deleting).  I'm not sure how this will work with straight 
IMAP access though, which is one of the reasons I haven't switched yet.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com