Re: mailing list vs "the futur"
On 10.08.18 11:46, Dan Purgert wrote:
> Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> 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.
>
> Namely:
>
> - HTML Messages
> - Not wrapping messages at ~80 characters
> - top posting
>
It is easy to delete posts so egregiously presented that reading them is
too much trouble. (When I return from a week out in the country, every
month, there's usually over 1200 emails waiting - down to half that after
procmail has done some weeding. So a post should also chop out all
quoted text not explicitly related to the reply, if it is to be read in
the time which can be given to it.)
> >
> > 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.
Having moved to mutt between 15 & 20 years ago, I've found it powerful
and highly configurable. It'll see me out.
> > 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.
And then with the list mailboxes arranged in order of interest in
"mailboxes" line(s) in ~/.muttrc, they are presented in priority order.
If domestic management, kids, or walking the dog intrude, then it's
automatically the less important emails which must wait for another day.
> 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?
Yup. Details on how to direct its filtering/distribution are in the
procmailrc manpage. Its development stabilised some time ago, and those
of us who use it are very content with that.
Erik
Reply to: