From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
To: Chip Mefford <cmefford@avwashington.com>
Message Hash: 7d1667c7d0ccc864ba19a954b975d082082cdaa1c451e9cc9400563c2b20f4b2
Message ID: <3240C832.E1E@gte.net>
Reply To: <v03007801ae65b79e711a@[207.79.65.35]>
UTC Datetime: 1996-09-19 09:25:13 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 17:25:13 +0800
From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 17:25:13 +0800
To: Chip Mefford <cmefford@avwashington.com>
Subject: Re: cypherpunk listserve usefulness
In-Reply-To: <v03007801ae65b79e711a@[207.79.65.35]>
Message-ID: <3240C832.E1E@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Chip Mefford wrote:
> As much as it shames me, I have recently discovered that by filtering
> messages from only 2 participants and setting body filters on 3
> keywords have remarkably improved the usefulness of this listserve.
> As much as I do enjoy some of the filtered subject matter, I really
> feel it is very off subject and makes this listserver useless for the
> intended task.
> I guess that makes me a censor and it has me reexamining some things.
Why not have the filter be more like a sieve, and dump the low-priority
stuff into separate containers, then sort them by personal criteria such
as message size, frequency of key words, etc.? If you maintain multiple
sorts, you can look over the stuff when you have a chance, and mass-dump
a series of messages that don't make a cutoff you specify at read-time.
Since I write my own utilities, I can mix and match keyword parsers,
multiple-indexed text browsing, and so on. Of course, the commercially-
available software totally sucks...
Return to September 1996
Return to ““Z.B.” <zachb@netcom.com>”