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

Re: [pub-sw-lifesci] [sic] Re: Lack of prefix in public-semweb-lifesci Subject line makes it difficult to recognize origin

From: Michal Galdzicki <mgaldzic@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 09:36:25 -0500
Message-ID: <e1e3fca60601310636t497950d2u89e4d30dbab9560f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Futrelle <bob.futrelle@gmail.com>
Cc: "Simon J. Hernandez" <simon@w3.org>, hclsig-pub <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

please take the non topic disscussion of the list.
thanks

On 1/31/06, Bob Futrelle <bob.futrelle@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would still like to see some workarounds for the ten year interval
> between now and when vendors respond to:
>
> "If your mail client software does not provide these features, please
> file a bug report with your software vendor."
>
> I'm not sure how much luck the Internet Society will have persuading
> Microsoft, Google, Eudora, Yahoo, and the unix Pine and Elm authors to
> become the ideal citizens that they and the W3C would like them to be.
> Not to mention, educating the users of the clients to understand how
> to deal with the List-Id.  There are zillions of email users out
> there, who simply want to see right in front of them, the information
> that describes what they're reading, rather than asking them to step
> up a level in their clients and their understanding of their client's
> settings and operations.  How about email to cell phones and PDAs?
> The list of problems goes on and on.
>
> In the meantime, I personally will continue to manage my own various
> GNU Mailman lists that have a built-in ability to include a prefix
> automatically.  And I will continue to add prefixes to my mail,
> [pub-sw-lifesci] , unless the W3C feels it's an egregious violation of
> the spirit of the RFC.
>
> I find that it's particularly important to have a meaningful prefix
> for a person who receives their *first* mail from a particular list,
> which they might not otherwise recognize.
>
> The RFC is asking a lot of the vendors, and that was 5 years ago now
> (!). RFC documents don't solve problems, they just set standards that
> they *hope* will come about.  I think the US, for example, has
> officially adopted the metric system, the whole nine yards.  The
> practice hasn't caught up yet.
>
> How many more years do we have to wait for Email Utopia?
>
>  - Bob Futrelle
>
>
> On 1/31/06, Simon J. Hernandez <simon@w3.org> 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
> >
> > --
> > Simon J. Hernandez    |    http://people.w3.org/simon/
> >
>
>
> --
> Robert P. Futrelle
>     Associate Professor
> Biological Knowledge Laboratory
> College of Computer and Information Science
> Northeastern University MS WVH202
> 360 Huntington Ave.
> Boston, MA 02115
>
> Office: (617)-373-4239
> Fax:    (617)-373-5121
> http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/futrelle
> http://www.bionlp.org
> http://www.diagrams.org
> http://biologicalknowledge.com
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 14:36:37 GMT

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