From: Mark Walker (mark@permanentend.org)
Date: Tue Aug 19 2003 - 06:38:56 MDT
Emlyn O'regan wrote:
> I support Mark's idea above; I think public killfiles are a great idea;
it's
> a strong decentralised alternative to moderation.
>
> But I'd call it a filter; what you are doing, after all, is filtering the
> list.
>
I agree that filtering is a better description and killfile just doesn't
sound pleasant. Another way to make the same point is to think of it as
individual customizing of the list--if you choose to filter out emails from
certain people then you are in effect subscribing to a proper subset of the
list. It occurs to me that the list could actually in principle divide into
two or more distinct groups--suppose persons 1-500 filter out the messages
from 500-1000 and vice versa. This would be an interesting result in social
ecology. Of course this will not happen because some have already stated
that they never use such filters. In any event, I see this as no worse than
when a party breaks up into the "kitchen people" and the "living room
people". Indeed, filters are no worse than avoiding those people at a party
who want to show you 700 photos of their kids at a little league tournament
and talk about the latest reality tv show.
> For an implementation, I'd actually like the option to receive all the
email
> from my killfile, but with a tag in the subject like "[filtered]" so that
I
> can have them automatically shunt them into a different mail folder, as I
do
> like to peruse my killfile occasionally.
>
Good idea. I've followed threads where someone is responding to someone who
I have filtered and it is sometimes very handy to be able to go back and
look at the original message.
Mark
Mark Walker, PhD
Research Associate, Philosophy, Trinity College
University of Toronto
Room 214 Gerald Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place
Toronto
M5S 1H8
www.permanentend.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 19 2003 - 06:50:44 MDT