Re: [Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. sub-tagged ?

[Nick Dokos]

Štěpán Němec <address@hidden> wrote:

> FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects
> of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable
> (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike
> [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject:
> header space.
> 
> I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that.
>

Because I can scan my inbox at a glance and triage quickly. Here's what
I see (with mh-e in emacs as my reader):

 ...
 221+ 01/04 Štěpán Němec   [Orgmode] Re: should the mail list be splitted resp. 
sub-tagged ?<<Bastien <address@hidden> writes: > Hi Torste
 ...

If I am in org-mode mode (so to speak), I'll look at it. If not, I will
skip it for now and get back to it later.

Having the mailing list markers is indispensable to me. I belong to
quite a few MLs and the ones that don't have a marker are a PITA.
Shortening the marker is fine: eliminating it is not.

> If you want to somehow treat the mails from this list specially, why
> don't you filter on the presence of the mailing list address in the
> headers, for example?
> 

Because all of that needs additional setup, both at the front end to do
the filtering and at the back end to make sure that I don't miss anything.
And that needs debugging and continued maintenance (and missed emails when
something goes wrong, which inevitably it will). I'd rather have the list
software take care of it.

Nick