Re: [semweb-lifesci]

Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk> writes:

> Let's be clear. This is NOT an standards issue. As far as I can tell both RFCs
> mentioned tell you WHAT to do. This is good. They do not tell you what you
> should not do; I see no mention of subject lines in either. 

There is no standard that I am aware of for subject tagging as
convention or even format it should use, for instance how many would
want [semweb-lifesci] versus [semweb-lifesci@w3.org] or [W3C Semantic
Web Life Sciences Mailing List] ... If used as an identifier it should
be unique as is the case with List-Id.  Tagging does not convey
definitively it is a list mail as tagging is used for other purposes.

>   TG> Also I thought it would be helpful to start a Wiki [2] on configuring
>   TG> filtering for various mail clients, as most are capable of filtering on
>   TG> List-Id and other headers. 
>
>
> And here is the problem. You assume that you know how I or others use subject
> line tags. Actually, I don't filter on them at all; I use "to" or "cc"
> addresses, as this captures emails cc'd to me personally, which your List-Id
> technique fails for. 

There was a specific concern raised someone raised in this thread
about inability to filter lacking subject tag with a particular mail
client which actually can filter on List-Id and I documented that on
the wiki.

As an aside your to/cc filtering will fail on a bcc to a list whereas
List-Id filtering would succeed.  Also on the wiki I gave some recipes
to handle both the to/cc and List-Id scenario which some may prefer in
the same mailbox and others in a separate one for responses directed
towards them.  We also documented how to do subject tagging oneself
with procmail and Eudora.

[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/tools/EmailClientForMailingListFiltering

> I use them because I filter several mailing lists into one folder and like the
> visual cue this gives. I identify semweb-lifesci mails by the lack of a tag,
> which works because it's the only list in that folder that doesn't. So, you
> see, on this basis ALL of the points on your subject-tagging page are, well,
> either irrelevant or wrong.

In your particular case due to your personal filtering choices, yes I
would agree.  There are infinite ways people can choose to filter
their mail as such subject tagging convention is surely irrelevant to
others.

> If you are going to provide a service, then listen to your users. If you are
> not going to listen to your users, then don't provide a service. There are
> others who can do it better.

We are listening right now and it is even possible we can be persuaded
to change, you might see the other point of view or we can reach some
middle ground.  I am sure there are users who would be strongly
opposed to subject tagging for various reasons and hope they can be
heard as well.  

One idea I was toying with last night was a subject tagging service
whereby individuals could opt to pipe W3C list mail to tag based on
List-Id.

> Sorry for sounding so irritable on this; it's a bad time of year for
> me. Normally, I'd take this with more of a sense of humour, or a slightly
> raised eyebrow. 

I understand people are frustrated and I would prefer we try to be
objective and constructive in this dialog.

Regards,

-- 
Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
W3C Systems Team
http://www.w3.org

Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 16:57:13 UTC