On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 11:25:08AM -0800, Ken Irving wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 08:01:41PM +0100, Karl E. Jorgensen wrote: > > On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 12:44:25PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote: > > > On Wed May 16, 2007 at 03:27:41 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > > > > >> This is a function of your MUA, most decent mail readers and all news > > > > >> readers worthy of being called such support highlight/kill by thread, > > > > >> usually in a single keystroke. > > > > > > > > > > I have to admit my ignorance then. I'm a keen mutt user, but I cannot > > > > > find that feature (!) > > > > > > > > As advanced as Mutt is, this is where Mutt really falls down. I > > > > ultimately > > > > ended up switching to kmail to get that feature. > > > > > > OK here's a simple version. > > > > That's the sort of thing I was after - but in the mean time I've created > > my own based on message-ids, as I realised that threading isn't done by > > subject. > > > > It's not perfect (because of other people's broken MUAs) - long threads > > will end up with mails that do not refer to my "killed" message-id > > (apparantly MUAs are only required to keep 8 message-ids in References:) > > still end up in my normal list mailbox. At least it allow me to check > > up on Goodwin's law :-) > > I'm not sure Godwin's law applies to this list, given at least one OT > thread that went on & on about or including such references. To me > these OT threads seem to be predominantly about religion or other "faith" > or opinion-based topics, and seem a complete waste of time, not to > mention resources. But they also appear to stroke the egos involved, so > are perhaps a cost in keeping some frequent-and-otherwise-useful posters > active on the list, and are in any case easily identified and ignorable > by the "OT" tags. Ego-stroking or not - I have no time for such irrelevant threads. To me, they're barely marginally better than spam. But rather than stoke the fires and offend, I'd rather silently ignore them. I do not want to rely on an '[OT]' tag: - It's not used consistently - the use of the tag is an admission that the message shouldn't have been posted in the first place. On the other hand, relying on the References: header fall foul to broken MUAs. I guess I can't have it all... Oh bummer. Now this thread is going off topic too... Perhaps I need to start killfiling my own messages too!! (I know. I'm mad. bwahahaha. [/me re-engages alternate personality].) -- Karl E. Jorgensen karl@jorgensen.org.uk http://www.jorgensen.org.uk/ karl@jorgensen.com http://karl.jorgensen.com ==== Today's fortune: The best book on programming for the layman is "Alice in Wonderland"; but that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature