Spam and mailing lists

Mark E. Mallett mem at mv.mv.com
Thu Oct 19 18:20:55 EDT 2006


On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 08:42:44PM -0400, mike ledoux wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 07:16:05PM -0400, Travis Roy wrote:
> > >Since I suggested it I should probably explain why I suggested this
> > >change. It's very simple...  I perfer that mailing lists have the name of
> > >the list in the subject.  That's all.  I could adjust my mail client or
> > >maybe create a .procmailrc entry to :0: this into a different mbox, but I
> > >don't... I'm not into e-mail segregation and a quick glance of [listname]
> > >is just visual appealing and easy to do a quick mental sort.
> > 
> > I'm with Kenta.

I find it odd that mailman still doesn't offer this as one of the
things you can personalize (when the list admin enables personalization).

Unless I've missed it, and it does offer it:)  But I took a tour of the
mailman docs, as I did another time this came up (a couple of years
ago, and not here).



> We've been through this before on the list, many times, and it
> always works out that the majority of people who state a preference
> prefer not to have the Subject: line munged.  If you want it, and
> are running procmail or can run procmail, it is simple enough to add
> it yourself.  Here's a rule to start with (not tested, just off the
> top of my head):
> 
> :0fwh
> * ^List-Id:.*gnhlug-discuss
> | sed '/^Subject:/s//& [gnhlug-discuss]/'

IMHO it's a little tougher than that; you need to account for "Re:" and
"Fwd:" and other common syntax items, and for '[gnhlug-discuss]' already
being there (because somebody has procmail'd it in and not stripped it
out when they replied).  Much better to have the stripping & adding
munging done by the MLM.

-mm-   (who is not in favor of subject-line tagging, but would not be
        affected if it were a personalization option)


More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list