Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Paul Howarth wrote:
Ian Malone wrote:
I recently subscribed to the subversion users
list. It's another (fairly) high volume list so
I quickly changed to the digest. Unlike fedora-list
the digest comes in the form of a mail listing
responses under each thread with the poster and
number. The mails themselves are attachments indexed
by the number. I can see two main advantages over the
fedora-list digest format:
1. It is possible to actually reply to the mail
you are responding to. This means threading
isn't broken for those who use it and saves
time spent on manually changing subject lines,
attributions, and quotations.
2. Fedora's numbered format has occasionally led me
to miss threads I've been following, only to find
them when I look at the archives (not often). With
this format it seems easier to identify new threads
and spot ones of interest more easily.
They appear to be using a program called ezmlm.
Here's a short sample of how one of these looks:
Topics (messages 35321 through 35350):
Re: Subversion Newbie thoughts: Database Backend, SQL, and the style?
35321 by: Christopher Ness
35348 by: John
Re: Recommendations on SVN, gForge....
35322 by: Dan Snider
35327 by: Dan Snider
Does anyone else think this format is more useful?
What would it take to persuade Redhat to use it instead?
You can already do this. Change your list preferences to use MIME
format digests.
That gets the messages as attachments, but it doesn't thread them.
Threading does sound like a pretty cool feature.
Indeed. But can't you get all that by subscribing in non-digest mode,
and using a mail client like thunderbird, use a mail filter to put each
list in its own folder and view the messages in threaded mode?
So you get the benefits of threading, you don't clutter up your inbox,
the ease of replying, and you don't have to wait for the digest to come
in either. Seems like the best of all options to me.
Paul.
