Re: [Tools-discuss] last-call list subject lines

Michael Richardson <> Mon, 28 September 2020 23:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05D0C3A09C4 for <>; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 16:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jORX68shaWeK for <>; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 16:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 605053A09BB for <>; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 16:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8058D389A9; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 19:39:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by localhost (localhost []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 7--jEQCHqzTs; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 19:39:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30864389A5; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 19:39:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76842570; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 19:34:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Robert Sparks <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <8313.1601319931@localhost> <> <30810.1601325183@localhost> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 19:34:59 -0400
Message-ID: <10570.1601336099@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] last-call list subject lines
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 23:35:08 -0000

Robert Sparks <> wrote:
    > On 9/28/20 3:33 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
    >> Robert Sparks <> wrote: > Can you say more about
    >> why that change would help?
    >> Sorting by subject would be more useful.
    >> Scanning by eye is easier, particularly since the right-hand side
    >> often gets truncated.
    >> Yes, I can use search in the end, which is what I did.

    > Right.

    > Searching would be made a little more difficult were we to change
    > things as you suggested (at least with simple string searches).

    > Right now, you can search for all the reviews on a doc using "review of
    > draft-<blah>" or "telechat review of draft-<blah>".

And I can see how this was a win when ietf@ and last-call@  were combined.
If you look at last-call, "review of" is redundant.  Almost every message
subject contains that string :-)

    > I'm not sure its a big enough win to drive a change though - if we were
    > to change, future searchers (looking across the period of change) would
    > have to search for both things.

Yes, that's a concern.

    > Scanning by eye suffers some of the same tradeoffs. Since group
    > acronyms tend to be short, as are the types of review, the form of the
    > line is currently mostly static as you scan down - the column breaks
    > move a little with a very rough right edge. Moving the draft name to
    > the front will make all the column boundaries very rough.

sure.  I get it in my inbox as well as I look back in the archives with IMAP.
I feel there is a benefit for my inbox too, as I am more likely to notice
things.  I even thought to suggest removing  "draft-", but I didn't.

Michael Richardson <>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide