On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 15:03:24 -0400, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > > > I do, but it is a lot of email and if I miss a few days it takes a while to > > catch up again. At some point I will probably do some smarter filtering, but > > I don't want to spend the effort to figure that out right now. > > I was at some point doing the "smarter filtering", i.e. each list to its > own folder, but eventually found out that it's better to combine the > whole thing, which is what I do now. I also managed to figure out that > it's better to put stuff that doesn't pass through the list, but has a > Cc: some-list header, in the same folder; that way, duplicates (of which > I do get a few) are easier to handle. (You can choose to remove dupes > by telling Majordomo not to send you mails that have you on Cc:, but > I've found that I lose some people's emails due to my own spam > filtering.) I have on my TODO to have procmail throw away an email that > it already delivered (e.g. by comparing Message-Id's), so if someone has > a solution to that I'd like to know.
I don't have cc's removed because that still sometimes gets me faster replies, but I do have get only one message when a message is posted to several lists set. I use mutt to read mail and maildrop to do filtering. I think for me smarter filtering would be to split the lists into to or three groups. There are lists I see a fair number of interesting messages on, lists I can often answer questions on, and other postgres lists. When I fall behind, doing a D.* on the other postgres lists is something I should do more than I currently am. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
