Re: Kind of annoying.

At 09:12 2002-06-13 -0400, Robert Adkins did say:
> I am just curious as to why this mailing list, about a mail processing
> program, is designed to foil mail reading program rules.
FTR, there is no such design, *AND* while the procmail list is about 
procmail - the list processor itself isn't procmail.  So even if the 
argument were valid, it isn't procmail's fault.
> It is a little annoying to have to select and drag all of the procmail 
> Mailing list information into a folder that I have created to store such 
> information.
I humbly submit that you're doing something very wrong then.

> The other mailing lists that I subscribe to simply put in the subject
> section a simple explanation of where this mail is coming from. May I ask
> why that is so difficult to do?
Because as anyone who understands mailing list filtering, the SUBJECT makes 
a poor filtering criteria.  Check out the "headers" of the message 
sometime, where you'll find a header such as:
> > Sender: procmail-admin(_at_)Lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
(and a number of other list-specific headers, some of which would work just 
as well in this case).
Why is filtering on the appropriate header so difficult to do?

> Actually while I am at it, could anyone explain how to set that up using 
> Procmail?
Filtering the list messages properly?  It's been posted multitudes of times:

:0:
* ^Sender:[     ]*procmail-admin(_at_)Lists\(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen\(_dot_)DE
procmail.mbx

(There are a plethora of variants on the general theme)

If you're asking "how can I mangle the subject line to include [procmail]", 
then you'll find that one in the archives too.  I wouldn't advise doing it 
however: people who change the subject lines of list messages (specifically 
those written by others to which they are replying to) to suit their 
personal desires, and then REPLY to a list message, bringing with it that 
changed subject line, tend to cause problems for others: you fragment the 
list subjects, forcing others to add filters to remove the innane prefix 
and other junk that it creates (such as multiple Re: stuff --  Re: 
[procmail] Re: original subject").
>  Perhaps that could be forwarded to the maintainers of this list
> so that they could follow suit with most all other mailing lists.
Heh, good luck raising the list maintainer.  As several regulars here can 
fairly well attest, that can often require the skills of a necromancer.
Surely, if you feel so strongly about the subject line matter, you can 
raise these issues with the listowner directly?  The list itself is about 
procmail -- the people here are users of procmail, not a list admin collective.
> All I am looking for is a simple [Procmail] to be placed in front of the
Since the message can be filtered with a normal filter (such as the 
sender), that extra JUNK in the subject is a liability.  What happens when 
someone crossposts a message to multiple lists, and a followup is 
crossposted to the same places?  Each list tosses in it's own [listname] 
junk, and the message then has MULTIPLE lists identified, depending on 
where it is seen.  Now, WHICH folder to file it in?
With the significant amount of list-identifying material in the message 
headers _already_, there's no need to blow another 10 bytes on each 
message, and pollute the subject line.  Consider: once the messages are 
filed into a list-specific mailbox, wouldn't it be annoying to see 
[listname] in EVERY subject?
FTR, as long as we're talking about other lists you're on and how they do 
things, on some of the other lists that I am on, many users use bracketed 
keywords to identify topical discussions ON THAT LIST - that is, they could 
discuss procmail (as it pertains to some nifty thing they're doing) or some 
policital thing and put [PROCMAIL] or [POLITICAL] in the subject to help 
others keyword identify the messages WITHIN THAT LIST.  The mere presense 
of a keyword in the subject doesn't mean that the message belongs ON A 
DIFFERENT LIST THAN WHERE IT ORIGINATED.  The sender: however, would do 
well to identify a list-originated message.
> subject line. If it is simply something that Procmail is unable to
> perform and this list "must" use Procmail for philosophical reasons, then
> I am ok with that.
Huh?  If your mail program can only filter on Subject: then there's a clear 
need to toss it and switch to a more capable mail prog, or accept that your 
mail client shouldn't be doing mail filtering and that you should be using 
a mail filter - I dunno, such as procmail - to perform that task.
---
 Sean B. Straw / Professional Software Engineering

 Procmail disclaimer: <http://www.professional.org/procmail/disclaimer.html>
 Please DO NOT carbon me on list replies.  I'll get my copy from the list.

_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail