Ahem,
I must submit this regarding the rude statements included within the
response from Mr. Sean. B Straw / "Professional" Software Engineering.
Apparently, once people get to a point where they feel that they are
superior to others they forgot some things.
This is what they forget:
There was a time in their lives when they didn't know how to tie a
shoe,
there was a time in their lives when they didn't know how to read and
there was a time in their lives when they simply had no idea how to use a
toilet.
Those are all things that we learned from people that knew much more
about those things. I don't know about you, but if I was told how stupid
I must be for being born not knowing how to read, tie a shoe, speak or
use a toilet, I doubt that I would have easily learned how to perform
those basic tasks.
Suffice to say, I am certain that most people on this list were
nurtured
into learning those tasks. Which is something that completely and totally
lacks in the tone and verbage used in ALL responses from Mr. Sean B.
Straw / "Professional" Software Engineering.
I am rather certain that Mr. Straw is quite a capable individual and
has
years of experience, but there was a time when he simply didn't. However,
he has decided that he would rather overlook his humble beginnings as I
know of not a single human being that is born with the knowledge to do
anything but sit there, drool, eat, sleep, cry and excrete the waste that
we excrete, Mr. Straw included.
Now, this I must state directly to Mr. Straw, I wish for you to never
again respond to a single question that I submit. You "assistance" is not
required and furthermore, I know that if you are "front man" for this
"Professional" Software Engineering company, then I simply will never do
business with your company. It would be a waste of time and money to pay
someone that would treat people (possibly future customer's) as rudely
and callously as you do.
I have said my peace and now I am done with that.
However, I must thank you for informing me that the list-maintainer
rarely, if ever reads this list and for all intents and purposes is
unavailable. That is about the only "valuable" information that you
provided. The rest was just filled with such asinine vitriol that it is
just about as usefull as an electric lawnmower in the middle of a desert.
Regards,
Robert Adkins
-----Original Message-----
From: Professional Software Engineering
[mailto:PSE-L(_at_)mail(_dot_)professional(_dot_)org]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 9:00 AM
To: procmail-users(_at_)procmail(_dot_)org; Robert Adkins
Subject: 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
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail