On Fri, Mar 05, 1999 at 01:58:05PM -0500, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Well, some of us need to live in the real world.
As someone who has been running mailing lists for the better part of
two decades, I think I *do* live in the real world. I think your
recommendation is better directed at people who sign up for mailing
lists which generate volumnious traffic but who fail to ensure that
they can cope with the direct result of their own actions.
> > > I think 1) is irrelevant. The chances of one person signing up for two
> > > lists with overlapping tags it pretty remote.
> > And you base this on what statistical study, exactly?
I note with interest that you have not answered this question. Have you
in fact performed a quantitative analysis or survey of any kind on this point?
> > Oh, and FYI: It has already happened.
> Not to me nor to anybody on any of my lists.
I didn't say it happened to you. And how do you *know*, for a fact, that
it has not happened to anybody on any of your lists? Did you ask them
all? Or are you just assuming that this is the case because no one has
informed you of such a situation? Has it occured to you that the possibility
exists that it *has* happened to someone on one of your mailing lists
and that they didn't see fit -- for whatever reason -- to tell you about it?
> Not much point discussing it. I have been running mailing lists for about
> 8 years now. If someone were to remove this capability from my mailing
> list software, I am luckily capable of putting it back in myself. Someone
> asked about the merits of this and I am simply saying that there are
> people out there who find it useful.
Whether there are some people who find it useful or not is not at issue here.
What is at issue are other things like, is it advisable? Is it scalable?
What problems can it cause? How does it comply with standards? What
alternatives exist? Are those alternatives better?
> > Then why don't you use a mail client that lets you set the visual
> > cue based on the "To:" line?
> Are there any that can do this?
Yes, there is at least one: mutt. I'd be mildly surprised to learn
that there aren't others.