On Sat, 2007-06-09 at 19:53 -0400, Mike Schinkel wrote: > > Malcolm Tredinnick wrote: > > Outlook has had rule-based sorting into other mailboxes for a > > while, so I would have thought it was possible to use that. > > It does have that. And I tried that for a while, but found it to be > "out-of-sight, out-of-mind." It's worse than just going to the group page > and searching when I need something.
So rather than you changing your usage patterns slightly, you want us to change the list appearance for over 5000 other people. > How I work with other lists (that use subject headers) is I press Ctrl-F to > bring up a search box and type "[whatever" (let's assume "[du]" for this > list). That gives me a list of only those emails and when I open them I can > go to the previous or next email by clicking a button. It is really the > only way I'd found to effectively manage participation in a list (and I've > tried lots of things.) > > > I also thought it had a way to search for text that appeared > > anywhere in the headers (so you can search for > > django-users@googlegroups.com wherever it appears). > > It does, but it takes many keystrokes and numerous clicks making it very > tiring to do over and over every day, hence rather than have to do that I > just give up on a list and unsubscribe, especially a high volume one. > > > > Obviously there's a group of people that would like to see this. Is > > > there any chance for a compromise? I understand about "burning" 14 > > > characters, but what about four, i.e. [du]? > > > > Cryptic prefixes don't seem very usable for the masses. I > > realise it sounds harsh, but degrading the situation for a > > lot of users just because of flaws in one particular email > > client isn't particularly fair. > > I don't be to be contrary or confrontational, but in what context is it > unusable? What does [du] mean when you're looking at multiple mailing lists? There's absolutely zero context there. It's not making things clearer. > I would think it would be confusing for a person the first time > they subscribed after which they'd learn what it means and go about their > business. Heck, what about [django] then? That's usable. So we do that on this list and then somebody on another django-related list all want the same thing and suddenly [django] doesn't look very unique. There's a slippery slope argument there. > And I wouldn't be asking for something "just for me" if it wasn't standard > practice on most lists. Where "most" means "some". It sounds like this is common on the lists you subscribe to. It happens to be uncommon (slightly less than 40% by a count I just did) on high-volume lists I'm subscribed to. Two samples don't make an any more reliable estimate than one, but it proves the existence of both sides of the coin. Please realise that this isn't a one-sided argument. I have some sympathy for people wanting the title in the subject line, but since it can be worked around, I don't view it as compulsory (and my preference is not to have it for reasons mentioned elsewhere, so I'm personally happy with the current state of affairs). > > If Outlook cannot do what you want and the current situation > > is intolerable, you can switch your configuration (at the > > Google groups page for this group) to daily digest mode (one > > email per day). Or you can read and reply to the group > > through the web interface. > > <Sigh> Digest isn't usable either and neither is reading or replying to the > web interface. It's sad that you guys are so against what is standard > practice on almost every other list. No, it's not standard practice on "almost every other list". Including the mailing list name happens on some lists and not on others. I have on idea of the real percentages over all the public mailing lists in all the world, but I'll wager it isn't "almost all". As I said in the first post, opinions differ as to the utility of this option. Mail clients have been able to handle header filtering for years and mailing list software includes identifier headers for this very reason (so that the subject line doesn't have to serve double duty). The django-* list creators made a decision and were aware that whilst it may require some small changes in habits for some people, it's hardly a unique decision. If we made the opposite decision, it would require changes for other people. Realise that some threads end up nesting _very_ deeply (a couple of dozen replies to replies sometimes), so having some space to allow the indentation for threading display removes some of the real-estate for subject viewing (your original message for example, since you replied to an existing message rather than starting a new thread, is nested half a dozen messages into the thread). > I'll probably just have to unsubscribe > and learn TurboGears instead. If you want to do that, we can only wish you the best and hope you reconsider in the future. > BTW, as I'm new to this list, should I take this attitude as a > foreshadowing? Foreshadowing of what? That requests are listened to and answered with reasoning to back them up, rather than just a brush-off? Absolutely. That we welcome new contributions and take the time to respond? Yes. :-) Look back over the thread and consider what has happened. You didn't get the answer you originally sought, but that's going to happen now and again. However, your original post was answered quickly by two people -- one gave you reasonsing, the other pointed to archived discussions that showed where we had considered this before and why it wasn't adopted; that shows this wasn't an ill-consider or spontaneous decision. In follow-ups I then answered your reply with some research on my own end to ensure I wasn't blowing smoke about what I remembered about Outlook (having not used Windows for 10 years, it was second-hand information) and posted a couple of alternatives that would work as a compromise. I've further addressed your points in this email. You'll find that sort of response thoroughness fairly typical for the list -- have a look at the replies to some of the substantive technical questions. I'm now dropping out of the thread, because you seem to have decided that you don't want to change anything on your end and there isn't really any new ground I can think to suggest. Very best wishes, Malcolm --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
