procmail
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Duplicates sent from lists

2004-02-17 09:45:47
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 06:46:01AM -0800, Professional Software
Engineering wrote:

At 14:08 2004-02-17 +0100, Dallman Ross wrote:

[Otoh, I sometimes send a copy "advertently."  Those who write
little "love notes" at the bottom of their posts to the effect of,
"I am subscribed to this list; so why would I want a *copy* when I
will read your message on the list (you annoying twit)?" do quite
miss the point, imho.

Not at all - I archive _all_ my email, so extra copies are uncalled
for - they're a waste of bandwidth and storage.  Further, when some
nimrod gets a virus, it's yet another copy of my email address in
their system.  It is also difficult to bow out of a discussion when
you contribute something, then someone replies-all, and other people
continue that trend (resulting in an ever-growing recipient list).

Yes, and please understand that I have no objection whatever to a
personal preference not to be copied.  You do things okay with the
setting of Reply-To to the list address, so it's hard to send you a
copy inadvertently.  I wasn't really writing the above with you in mind
when I paraphrased parenthetically the tone implied in some of the .sig
messages.  One the other day from a not-so-regular female poster
struck me in particular, because the message really did say something
like (paraphrased here), "*I* get *my* copy on the *list*, to which I
am SUBSCRIBED."  The wish not to get an extra copy is legitimate.  The
holier-than-thou tone implying that anyone who might both be on the
list and want a copy must be an idiot was what bugged me.


Further, it's my stance that any message bearing MY address should
bear my address only because that message actually merits my direct
attention, and so, such messages are flagged in my mail reader so
that they stand out.  It makes it much easier to scroll through a

Btw, I wrote you privately circa six weeks ago, but never got a reply.
If you simply didn't care to reply, I have no problem with it.  I kept
wondering if you simply didn't get the mail, though.  I think (but am
not 100% sure) I wrote 2-3 weeks ago again to ask if you got it, even,
and didn't hear back then, either.  Sorry for putting this on-list, but
the opportunity does sort of present itself here.


In the end, there's no substitute for a bit of cognitive power on the
part of the individual hitting the REPLY button.

Yup.

:0:
* LISTNAME ?? ^^procmail^^
* B ?? Dallman
archive_this

<g>

Okay, so it's not terribly efficient, seeing as it's scanning the
complete message body for your name.  At least your name isn't
ultra-common.

Ya.  And now, with the copies that I do get, I would have doubles like
Kreemy.  :)

(Probably worth noting as well that I eschew body greps in my .rc,
reserving them only for the very few cases (under 1%) when I can't
identify the mail as good or spam from the headers.  I go to
great lengths not to du body greps except in the most egregious
case of last resort.)

Despite having the generic list identifier code, I still have per-list
rulesets, as messages from certain lists are subjected to additional
actions, and are processed in varying order - say, "clean" lists
versus "dirty" ones -- lists which support subscriber-only posting
and those which let any old moron (or spammer) fire a message off at
them, so despite a desire to streamline stuff, I still have a lot of
per-list code in my config.

I do some of that too.  I have $LIST stuff, and then I have
list-but-run-through-the-usual-spamsnag-labyrinth stuff.

Dallman

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>