httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "DL Neil" <PH...@DandE.HomeChoice.co.uk>
Subject Re: [users@httpd] Re: Administrivia question: subject prefix?
Date Tue, 27 Aug 2002 08:17:02 GMT
Hello...

> I really hope we are not talking about this change because of
> Microsoft products.

=I understood it to be a democratic process, a poll of list-members. Thus if
a number happen to use MS products then the same inevitability many of us
face in our corporate lives will apply! (regretably or otherwise depending
upon on your point of view/freedom of expression)

=No I don't think so, but because some contributions suggested various
ideas, which weren't going to work for MS users, I provided information to
show this. Similarly you will note that a contribution suggesting server
tweaking, was countered by another member pointing out that some do not have
access to re-configure their email server...

=Another contribution to this thread mentioned a 'problem' with subject
line. Not understanding what this meant/which email clients might be
affected, I requested clarification but have not been enlightened. If that
is/was a genuine problem then we should address it, but otherwise the
traditional width for email msgs has been based upon the width of 80x24
character screen dimensions, and declined in importance since the
implementation of proportional fonts and word-wrap - see also the RFCs
('write restrictively, read prescriptively', honored more in the breach than
the observance, but ... - also FYI Outlook Express allows a subject line
wider than my screen dimensions/resolution, so in this respect using MS is
not a problem (for once!))

> If we are doing this for the people who 'visually' filter, hmm.
> Filtering by using the complete header info would be the
> 'correct' way.
> Not by the To: From: Subject:
> These are often wrong.

=The theme of using mechanical coarse filtering (into folders) and then
finer filtering by eye has been developed in other contributions. (I like to
be able to use both methods too). Thus the subject line label has good
purpose. If however someone chooses to filter by both methods, one method or
the other - or neither, why should you, I, or him/her be any more/less
'right' that the others?

=The point: more accurate automated filtering of header info is only
possible if the email client enables such. MS-OE does not, and may/may not
be the only one.

> If one tried to filter spam by the To: field, you'd miss many many.
> I use win32 for some e-mail, my filters for the e-mail app I chose, work
> fine. I am subscribed to many lists, all e-mail gets filtered to the
> corresponding 'inbox'.  Mangling the subject field just seems wrong.
> Bind list doesn't do it, FBSD list doesn't do it. Bugtraq, vulndev...
> </ramble>

=agreed, but if I come home with some auto accessory to make my car look
just so slick, only to find that it doesn't 'fit'; do I change the accessory
or the whole vehicle to suit the other? For home users, MS is going to be
the inevitable default choice (not that I agree with the commercial
realities that make it so); similarly for corporate users you get to use
what you're given (and that's likely MS too). So listing 'better' products
is not difficult (!) but it is not a solution. The fact remains, the Win32
filtering mentioned cannot cope with the (unusual) msg quoted below.

=The list has a rule about ASCII/simple text cf HTML/rich text format. This
is because some email packages cannot read HTML and viewing such in a text
window is distracting/truly ugly! MS packages can render HTML msgs and some
delight in utilising lovely colors, background 'stationery', and amazingly
stupid other 'twiddly bits' (to say nothing of opening themselves up to
virus transmission). Yet we don't see a call for such to be allowed on the
list just because we can do it/it's there/Mr MS says so (thank God).

=Quite to the contrary. The list is by its nature subject to the lowest
common denominator of the wide community of email users/packages in order to
satisfy the membership objective: to (continue to) learn more about the use,
configuration, and optimisation of Apache (my restatement). Given the choice
we would all say: Apache, first; email niceties, second.

=So no, the discussion should not come down to MS products vs the rest/best,
but membership objectives subjected to realities; and the pertinent reality
is that automated filtering is not 'the' answer because many members use
filtering, many use OL/OE, and MS' email filtering is about as flexible as
any other aspect of their products! (my regret being as great as yours)

=Regards,
=dn

PS another nail in MS's coffin: they provide use with yet another lowest,
common denominator!?


> XX> However MS-Outlook/Outlook Express users are limited to:
> XX> Now a *nix-phile might offer advice about moving OpSys, but that's not
going
> >> DN> <users-return-12918-PHPml=dande.homechoice.co.uk@httpd.apache.org>
> >> DN> Reply-To: users@httpd.apache.org
> >> DN> list-help: <mailto:users-help@httpd.apache.org>
> >> DN> list-unsubscribe: <mailto:users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org>
> >> DN> list-post: <mailto:users@httpd.apache.org>
> >> DN> Delivered-To: mailing list users@httpd.apache.org
> >> There is your filter string/strings.
> >> DN> The msg with the following headers received from list today could
not
> >> DN> filtered by other/traditional means. However if the list server



---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
   "   from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org


Mime
View raw message