From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2007-09-05T07:45:42+09:00
Subject: Re: subject line

On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 09:24:57PM +0900, Robert Klemme wrote:
> I vote against, basically because I believe the issue can be solved
> differently (and people are actually doing it).  Note that the OP is
> using a gmail account which *has* nice filtering capabilities (which I
> use as well).

The issue is being worked around in many cases by people who would find
an added identifier far more convenient.  In some cases, that work-around
involves spending more time on emails.  In others (such as in my case),
it involves using settings that replace the originator's email address in
the inbox display with the list's email address, which unfortunately
means I'm making a decision between two pieces of information I'd like to
have available to me *before* I open the email -- not ideal, but better
than nothing.

In other words, the issue isn't being "solved" in all cases.  It's just
being mitigated for many of us, and often requires handling this mailing
list differently from other lists.  If there's a credible argument for
keeping things as they are, that's fine -- but please don't just dismiss
the inconvenience suffered by others as "solved" because we've managed to
live with it so far.


> 
> Plus, there is a certain chance that the header mangling conflicts
> with various other forums that are interconnected with this mailing
> list (notably comp.lang.ruby and the ruby forum).  For these forums a
> changed subject would be redundant because in a way they *are*
> filtered already. So we would either have to live with those
> redundancies or make gateways smarter to remove that tag again. I
> don't feel it's worth the effort.

Unless someone can confirm that there's any problem at all with subject
line editing by the list software, with regard to the forum and newsgroup
gateways, I'm not inclined to consider that much of a valid excuse for
summary rejection of the idea.  If someone can provide information to the
effect that your hypothesized problem is actually relevant, however, I'll
definitely take that into account.  Your mileage may vary.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Paul Graham: "Real ugliness is not harsh-looking syntax, but having to
build programs out of the wrong concepts."