FYI http://lsadc.org/info/lsa-ansi-letter.cfm Best regards Debbie Garside Managing Director GeoLang Ltd Corner House Barn Street Haverfordwest Pembrokeshire SA61 1BW Wales UK Tel: 0044 1437 766441 Web: http://www.geolang.com
I have configured all the lists I run so that the mail exploder will, at the left of the subject line, insert the name of the list in brackets thus: [LISTNAME] . This is very useful on busy lists, specialist lists and lists with multiple threads and varying subject lines, as well as being a protection against the human error of answering public mail as if it were private, which is how IETF mail (lacking, as it does, a subject tag) currently surfaces in our mailers. For example, I have just received 2 identical msgs from Debbie Garside, one obviously listmail (identified as such by the [LTRU] lead-in on its subject line) the other apparently private mail (until an examination of its internal routing headers revealed it to be listmail. I note that LTRU's admin people already do this, and wonder if IETF's admin would similarly oblige? Just asking. mg - - Marion Gunn * EGTeo (Estab.1991) 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an Bhóthair, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire. * mgunn <at> egt.ie * eamonn <at> egt.ie *
Debbie Garside scripsit: > FYI > > http://lsadc.org/info/lsa-ansi-letter.cfm This is a complaint by the Linguistic Society of America that the proposed OOXML ISO standard (aka Microsoft Office XML) doesn't use RFC 4646 (they are on a broken 639-1 plus 3166-1 subset of RFC 1766, both parts mandatory). <mock>Another nail in the OOXML coffin.</mock> -- -- Do I contradict myself? John Cowan Very well then, I contradict myself. cowan <at> ccil.org I am large, I contain multitudes. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass
Hi - > From: "Marion Gunn" <mgunn <at> egt.ie> > To: "IETF Languages Discussion" <ietf-languages <at> iana.org> > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 9:16 AM > Subject: [LISTNAME] in subject line ... > I note that LTRU's admin people already do this, and wonder if IETF's > admin would similarly oblige? ... ltru <at> ietf.org is just as much an IETF mailing list as ietf-languages <at> iana.org There is no IETF-wide policy on putting list names on the subject lines for IETF mailing lists, and attempts to gain agreement on one have repeatedly failed in the past. Though the lists I manage do insert their names, I personally find it of little value and don't really care whether they do or don't. Randy
Randy Presuhn wrote: > I personally find it of little value and don't really care whether > they do or don't. +1, see RFC 4096 for some jokes about this issue. Proper list header fields are a better way to achieve a similar effect. Frank
I have my email set so that new list messages go to my new mail from contacts box; I guess you can also configure your email so as to have the list messages go to a particular folder. Of course, some bizarre messages go straight to my inbox--I guess some of these are private messages. Once in a while they are not and I do not know why these do not make it to the right box but it has to do with the list name that was used to send the message I think. (And some of the messages in my new box I do not see immediately because my new box is so full, but otherwise the system works fine). Doubt this will help; every email system has its peculiarities (my hotmail account is no exception). But you might try the folder and identify every possible variant of this list name that you can think of as going to it. --C. E. Whitehead cewcathar <at> hotmail.com > >Just asking. >mg > >- - >Marion Gunn * EGTeo (Estab.1991) >27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an >Bhóthair, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire. >* mgunn <at> egt.ie * eamonn <at> egt.ie *(Continue reading)
On 2 Mar 2007, at 19:55, scríobh Randy Presuhn: > > ltru <at> ietf.org is just as much an IETF mailing list as ietf- > languages <at> iana.org I know. > There is no IETF-wide policy on putting list names on the subject > lines for IETF > mailing lists, I know. > and attempts to gain agreement on one have repeatedly failed > in the past. That I didn't know. > Though the lists I manage do insert their names, I know. Just like mine. > I personally > find it of little value > and don't really care whether they do or don't. Neither do I really, especially since most lists relevant to me are clearly so flagged, hence it's not a bother if I'm in a cybercafe with time running out and IETF mail scans like private mail from(Continue reading)
Personally I think it is helpful for occasions when one wants to visually scan a list of many email titles to know what are from a particular list. But not essential as long as most other lists do it so one can, as Marion suggests, interpret by the posters and titles what list is likely involved in the titles without [listname] (unless there is a big volume on this list and another topically related list without [listname] in title). Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Marion Gunn ... > > On 2 Mar 2007, at 19:55, scríobh Randy Presuhn: > > ... > > I personally > > find it of little value > > and don't really care whether they do or don't. > > Neither do I really, especially since most lists relevant to me are > clearly so flagged, hence it's not a bother if I'm in a cybercafe > with time running out and IETF mail scans like private mail from > people who just happen to be on the same list.> mg
On 3 Mar 2007, at 14:09, scríobh Don Osborn: > Personally I think it is helpful for occasions when one wants to > visually > scan a list of many email titles to know what are from a particular > list. Exactly. Especially to see which are cross-posted. > But not essential as long as most other lists do it so one can, as > Marion > suggests, interpret by the posters and titles what list is likely > involved > in the titles without [listname] (unless there is a big volume on > this list > and another topically related list without [listname] in title). Yes. Less a problem, of course, for people who only have or regularly use a single computer, with fixed mail settings of their own choice, more a problem for people sharing with friends or family or moving around a lot. But, as I said, not really such a big problem for most IETF users, since most other lists dealing with related subjects are tagged. I now suggest we end this thread, unless the listowner has something to say anent it. mg - - Marion Gunn * EGTeo (Estab.1991)(Continue reading)
Don Osborn scripsit: > Personally I think it is helpful for occasions when one wants to visually > scan a list of many email titles to know what are from a particular list. > But not essential as long as most other lists do it so one can, as Marion > suggests, interpret by the posters and titles what list is likely involved > in the titles without [listname] (unless there is a big volume on this list > and another topically related list without [listname] in title). I like it too. But the other side is that message titles are usually displayed in a fixed-width column (and many people still use mail clients where the width cannot be changed easily), and so the space occupied by "[ietf-langs]" or the like means that much less space for the actual subject. There will probably never be agreement on this point, so the only thing is for all of us to learn to live with both styles. -- -- John Cowan cowan <at> ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan If a traveler were informed that such a man [as Lord John Russell] was leader of the House of Commons, he may well begin to comprehend how the Egyptians worshiped an insect. --Benjamin Disraeli
RSS Feed3 | |
|---|---|
98 | |
5 | |
1 | |
13 | |
63 | |
93 | |
35 | |
38 | |
10 | |
21 | |
73 | |
5 | |
19 | |
49 | |
2 | |
112 | |
151 | |
24 | |
137 | |
73 | |
3 | |
40 | |
85 | |
111 | |
187 | |
227 | |
115 | |
37 | |
189 | |
129 | |
44 | |
66 | |
4 | |
10 | |
129 | |
114 | |
30 | |
72 | |
59 | |
56 | |
479 | |
252 | |
50 | |
25 | |
8 | |
67 | |
158 | |
21 | |
247 | |
164 | |
21 | |
73 | |
21 | |
121 | |
142 | |
107 | |
97 | |
326 | |
187 | |
178 | |
221 | |
275 | |
174 | |
52 | |
147 | |
128 | |
42 | |
262 | |
14 | |
98 | |
343 | |
176 | |
56 | |
12 | |
52 | |
95 | |
113 | |
9 | |
36 | |
170 | |
92 | |
103 | |
174 | |
302 | |
306 | |
17 | |
32 | |
66 | |
47 | |
112 | |
187 | |
30 | |
9 |
