----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Rex" <mrex@xxxxxxx> To: "Barry Leiba" <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:00 AM Barry Leiba wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Martin Rex <mrex@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > If one intends to actually *process* close to all of the Emails hitting > > one's inbox in near real time, then List-Id:, and any pre-sorting based > > on it, will _always_ slow down processing (unless the MUA or the processing > > is flawed). > > > > Whereas a subject prefix significantly facilitates tracking of stuff > > in a single large inbox. I'm getting 300+/day Emails and try to read >95% > > of it (my company internal Email is completely seperate at ~30/day, though). > > This makes no sense to me, Martin. Please explain why sorting based > on a subject prefix will work, while sorting based on a List-ID header > field will not. I do not sort EMail at all (my MUA does not support sorting). subject_prefix _obviates_ sorting. MUAs typically display the inbox with (status,sender,subject,received-time). With subject_prefix I can quite easily tell apart discussions from several IETF mailing lists, and it works with _every_ MUA with default settings. <tp> Until you get a Last Call, which is cross posted to the WG list, and some replies have [wgfb] and some do not, and then it gets cross posted to SAAG and we get [wgfb][saag] or [saag][wgfb] or [saag] or [wgfb] or .... You could of course request an update to all MUAs to ignore prefixes when collating. But nope, prefixes are a dead technology; do not insert them on the IETF list (speaking as one whose MUA, supplied by the manufacturer who supplies most of the world's MUAs, cannot do anything with List-Id:-(. Tom Petch </tp> -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf