[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Re: mailing list vs "the futur"

On 08/10, Dan Purgert wrote:
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 06:24:55AM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:
I get more mail than that before breakfast. If you've got the
right tools, it's easy to deal with.

This is an excellent point.  Many of the people who lodge complaints
like the one that started this discussion thread have chosen very poor
tools and thus have conflated the failings of those tools with some
non-existent inherent problems with mailing lists.

To expand on that with my own personal prejudice -- the people using
these "sub-par" tools are also the ones who're the cause of some of the
existent (modern?) problems with mailing lists.


- HTML Messages
- Not wrapping messages at ~80 characters
- top posting

I personally don't wrap at 80, it's IMO a right PITA when you have 1050pixels on your screen however mutt allows you to wrap on clients that are set up for full width while wrapping at 80 for those that wish not to.

Serious email users should be using mutt, which is fast, compact,
resistant to attack, and has an astonishing number of features.

Guess I'm not a "serious" email user then.  Half the time I'm still
using Tbird.

Those who receive large volumes of mail should be using procmail
to pre-sort it, and they should be aware of RFC 2919 (and thus
the existence of List-Id) as an excellent means for doing so.
These two tools in combination make dealing with large amounts
of traffic to large numbers of mailing lists quite easy.

Not familiar with procmail.  A quick perusal of the manpage seems to
indicate this is a local mail "processor" for sorting things, as opposed
to say something on the mailserver itself?

|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281


Dekks Herton

Thinkpad T61 2.0Ghz 2GB WSXGA+

Jabber IM: dekkzz78@jabber.hot-chilli.net

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: