W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > January 2006

Re: Lack of prefix in public-semweb-lifesci Subject line makes it difficult to recognize origin

From: Dave DeCaprio <daved@broad.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:25:33 -0500
Message-ID: <43DF573D.40807@broad.mit.edu>
To: "Simon J. Hernandez" <simon@w3.org>
CC: Bob Futrelle <bob.futrelle@gmail.com>, hclsig-pub <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
This sort of approach to problem solving is what causes so many of the 
disconnects between computer science people and biologists and health 
care workers.

I find the choice of the word practical in the email below to be most 
unusual.  'Principled' seems a more apt word to use.

Dave

Simon J. Hernandez wrote:

>Hi Bob.
>
>On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Bob Futrelle wrote:
>
>  
>
>>This note is for Simon J. Hernandez who handles mailing lists at W3C,
>>among many other things.
>>
>>Point being that the  points I made below resulted in about 20 emails
>>in the public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org list. Many of the notes discussed
>>changing settings on their email clients to allow them to distinguish
>>mail from public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org from other incoming mail.  But
>>a number did agree that having the list administrator set a prefix for
>>the subject line would work in every single client, since they all
>>show the leading portion of the subject line in their summaries.
>>    
>>
>
>
>Interestingly, our discussion has been focused on how to get vendors to
>fix their brokenness and use existent RFCs.
>
>Our Postmaster, Gerald Oskoboiny, has now documented our position[1] on
>this matter, which has strong consensus in the W3C Systems Team.
>
>
>  
>
>>Essentially all the discussion of this issue in this list so far has
>>focused on the client side.  I think that a number of us would like to
>>see a solution from the mailing list server side, the list management
>>side.  A short prefix such as [pub-sw-lifesci] sounds reasonable.  If
>>such could automatically be added to all outgoing list mail then we
>>would be able to identify mail from "unknown parties" who turn out to
>>be people  addressing the list. Personally, in this day and age, I
>>have to be suspicious of email I get from people I don't know, with
>>perhaps a subject that doesn't make it clear that it's from this list.
>> A prefix would also help me make a quick decision as to whether I
>>want to open the mail now or later as I scan my bulging inbox.
>>    
>>
>
>....
>
>As discussed in the above noted document, there is a standard,
>RFC-documented method to accomplish the same thing.
>
>We are always open to discussing systems issues, and we try to come to
>some mutually agreed upon solution to address most problems.  In this
>instance, your request prodded us to focus and and document our dirrection
>on this topic.
>
>I apologize if this is not the outcome you hoped for, but we feel using
>the existing RFCs and placing the burden of such functionality on the
>vendors of mail clients, is the more practical of the possible outcomes.
>
>Cheers.
>
>
>
>
>Simon
>
>
>
>1.  http://www.w3.org/Mail/subject-tagging
>
>  
>
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 12:25:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:41 GMT