It appears as if <EvMick@aol.com> wrote:
|I recall that during the JoeDee Flame war i got Waaaaaaaaaay behind on my
|mail. My mailbox was full frequently. I tried using a FIFO method of
|reading and commenting but I got further and further behind. I suppose that
|i was commenting on posts that were days if not weeks old. In other words I
|was making comments after the "ban' but unaware of the ban because i hadn't
|got that far yet. Of course i may have missed it altogether because if my
|mail box is full then i never get the email.
Have you tried to use an e-mail perusing program which sorts the list output
into ``threads'' using the ``In-Reply-To:'' headers placed in the e-mail by
most modern e-mail writing program? (Some mail readers use the ``Subject:''
header for this, but this method may generate a bogus ``thread'' where, in
reality, there exists none.)
With this "technology" one can detect a discussion, who take part in it, who
commented on what, etc., and, if the software supports it, can ``kill'' a
thread altogether. I find this functionality highly useful for my purposes,
especially if I can ``unkill'' that thread or author later.
If a discussion enters the flame zone, then one simply ``kills'' the thread,
and never see anything more of ut, unless, of course, the jihaders become
rude enough to overflow the entire list with their ``discussion'', in which
case the ``kill file'' may seem an appropriate measure for the bad humans.
If one avoids the "Plonk!" type message when ``killing'' an e-mail author,
then one will also avoid the response(s) it almost certainly would generate.
If one's mail perusing software does not support ``In-Reply-To:'' threading,
then one should, IMO, replace the software with a more functional one.
Stop! Think! There must be a harder way to do this!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:54 MDT