Brian E Carpenter writes: > Yes. You might feel that "Re: [6lo] Re: [IPv6]WG Last Call on draft-ietf-6lo- > " is noise, but in fact that allows me to (a) sort it automatically into the > dedicated inbox that I want and (b) to decide at a glance whether I need to r > ead it. But you can sort into folders using List-ID. That's its main reason for existence (IMO). And how can you choose "at a glance" whether to read when the important part of the subject -- the draft name -- has been pushed off the right side of the screen? > Also, there is no List-ID in the message, because it was directly addressed t > o me so did not actually reach me via the list, although copied there. That's > a pretty common case where the [] tag is extremely useful. I think we should > keep them. My experience is completely different from yours. Because I use List-ID to automatically refile all my mailing list traffic, when something comes directly, I'm going to read it no matter what, and I can almost always get the context of the message from the non-tag part of the Subject header, without even opening the message. I receive 400-500 messages per day, and the only part that slows me down is having to dig up the subject text after the tags. In many cases, so much of the subject text is off the screen that I can't. This is especially true for almost every message that announces an internet draft action. Between the tags and the Subject header boilerplate, the draft name is nowhere to be found :-( I think you, and others, have just gotten so used to the tags, your brain doesn't know what to do if the tag is missing :-) Recently the nanog list dropped the prefix tag from its mailing list traffic. I find the list a lot easier to read now, because the info I want (the Subject header text) is right there in front of me. I no longer have to go scanning past all the prefix noise to get to the actual information. Maybe we could get an option setting that lets each subscriber turn list name tag stuffing on or off. --lyndon
