NNTP and thunderbird-related lists
dmose at mozilla.org
Thu Jul 29 17:32:19 UTC 2010
On 7/28/10 11:35 PM, Karsten Düsterloh wrote:
> Dan Mosedale wrote:
>> What's still not clear to me is whether having all mailing list messages
>> filtered to another another folder works for you or not. Does it? If
>> not, is that because the "unread" count& "unread" status of the folder
>> also bubble up to the visible& audible representations of the account
>> in the folder pane and dock?
> Configuring mailing lists costs a lot of time:
> - subscription for each list is usually separate (with separate
> usernames/passwords etc.) and out of process (via web) or clumsy (pseudo
> double opt-in etc.)
Agreed, this is somewhat annoying.
> - you need to set up additional (folder/tag) structure to keep them
> - you need to set up custom filters to move them into your structure
Yep, this is something that the software really should handle on behalf
of the user.
> - replies need careful handling due to widely varying to/cc/list-*
> header configurations of mailing lists
This is an interesting point that I hadn't thought much about.
> - you get spammed by mails
I'm not sure what this means. Can you elaborate?
> Newsservers usually(!) have a server wide login (if at all),
I'm not sure how this applies to the Thunderbird-related lists (eg
tb-planning and tb-enterprise). Does it?
> readable on your request (pull!), have a fixed folder structure, a
> standard way for replies, etc.
> Newsgroups pay off in setup cost (as compared to lists) from the second
> group you subscribe on a server.
>> * newsgroups have lower barriers to entry and exit than mailing lists,
>> which is helpful since one often doesn't know how valuable a
>> subscription will be before subscribing?
As far as I can tell, this captures almost everything described above,
except for the push/pull bit. Right?
>> The reason I've put "something about web archives" here is because I'm
>> unclear how the more general statement you've made applies to the
>> specific cases we're talking about here. Our primary archives for
>> tb-planning and tb-enterprise are Google Groups. Is it your feeling
>> that they are insufficiently reader-friendly?
> Google Groups is a badly searchable
In what way do you feel Google Groups is badly searchable?
> and badly readable, because almost
> all mechanisms of a good newsreader are missing (like killfiles,
> watches, etzc.).
I agree that Google Groups reading affordances work for a more limited
set of reading styles than newsreaders in general.
More information about the tb-planning