Re: Request: Anyone using bogus / "humorous" X-Message-Flag headers, could we please turn them off

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Glaesemann [mailto:grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net]
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 10:45 AM
> To: Bill Bartlett
> Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Request: Anyone using bogus /
> "humorous" X-Message-Flag headers, could we please turn them off
>
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2007, at 9:05 , Bill Bartlett wrote:
>
> > Quick request to the group: we have several members who include
> > bogus or
> > "humorous" X-Message-Flag headers in their email messages. Could I
> > request that you _please_ turn them off?
>
> In all practicality, a request like this is futile:
> * Given the number of people on the list, you'll never get everybody
> to remove "bogus"
> X-Message-Flag headers
> * Given it's an X- header, doesn't that mean the meaning of
> the value
> is implementation dependent? What's "bogus" wrt Outlook may not be
> wrt another mail system or client
> * Doesn't this indicate that Outlook is broken (for some values of
> broken)?

Actually, no -- this is why I listed a specific X- header (
X-Message-Flag ) rather than simply saying "Hey, would everyone please
turn off their X-headers". This specific X- header is designed to have
Outlook "flag" a message and display an extra line of text with the flag
comment above the email. Since this is generally only used to flag
messages for followup actions, having messages come across with the
header already embedded in them simply serves to add an extra
distraction to the already-too-many bits into which I need to slice my
time. (Not that I want more time for things like my having to spend 3
hrs yesterday regenerating sequences after diagnosing a database crash
[bad disk controller on an old SuSE box] and restoring from backup, but
that's my real world...)

> > Because they come through as
> > flagged messages in Outlook, it throws off my email rules
> processing
> > and the messages end up into the wrong groups. (With the volume of
> > email these days, I definitely need all the assistance I
> can get from
> > things like rules processing to attempt to stay on top of it.)
>
> I sympathize. there *is* a lot of email traffic these days (and not
> just from the lists). But rather than request that others bend to
> your rules, I'd think a better solution would be to find (or
> develop)
> tools that do what you want. Whether that means better rule handling
> or better understanding of various headers, it sounds like Outlook
> isn't doing the job for you. Perhaps a hybrid approach would be
> helpful: use another email client for mailing lists and Outlook
> otherwise.

See above -- the problem isn't with Outlook at a mail client. Outlook is
doing exactly what it's supposed to do when it sees this X- header:
highlighting it and flagging the message for special handling. The
issue is with the headers being used (or misused) as they are. Believe
me, I'm not defending Outlook; however, that's what I (and many other
people) use -- it's just a tool to get a job done.

(For all you non-Outlook people out there, since you aren't seeing the
messages anyway, most of them are generally humorous messages like '
"Windows" is not the answer. "Windows" is the question and the answer is
"no"! ' or ' Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be
a completely unintentional side effect. (Linus Torvalds) ' Yes, they
were funny 2 years ago when I first saw them, but now it's gotten a bit
old -- sorry. [No, I'm not meaning to single out Andreas -- his just
happened to be the first two that I saw in my "listserv items of useful
Postgresql stuff to keep for reference" folder.])

>
> Hope this gives you some ideas.
>
> Michael Glaesemann
> grzm seespotcode net
>
>