Re: File carbons in Pine with several collections of

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:51:36 +0100, NM Public wrote:

>> bblx worked. The Lserv role worked. The FM role put it into
>> titan's sent-mail folder, not the one in the FM collection.
>> (Is that right?)
 
 
> You need to decide how you want your sent messages to be 
> organized. Possibilities include:

Intercalated Question : isn't sent-mail essentially a default for those
addresses that don't have an Fcc: of their own?

>   * a different sent mailbox for each of your roles (e.g., 
> sent-lserv, sent-fm, etc.)
 
Hmmm -- Just *one* for each?? Some of these roles automatically use
different machines, and some don't.  

Can't I have Fcc:s on each machine? I think I have some now --
corresponding ones, so that for instance anything sent or forwarded to
<joeblow> with any role will go into Fcc: <joeblow> on the machine that
role uses? 

I'm thinking especially about my lists. bblx now uses several addresses,
which I put into the Lcc: field according to each message, and its own
sent folder.

(That's called bblx-old; both bblx's archived incomers, and my outgoing
messages to the list, all get swept into that. Since no one else can post
to the list, replies to me are the only messages that go to the incoming
folder called bblx.) 

It sounds messy, but it works -- and is needed, since many (probably most
by now) of the subscribers are also friends with whom I exchange messages
unrelated to the list. Those go into their personal Fcc: folders if they
have them (i.e., if we correspond often or *very* seldom), while list
stuff all stays in list folders. In fact, quite a few are on two or three
lists I run, and one or more I subscribe to, *and* exchange messages under
all the lists. 

What's more, I have several other manual lists, which I hope to get around
to setting up the same way in time or move; but that's another thread...

I often save messages to more than one folder, just as libraries used to
put copies of cards into several drawers, and now do the electronic
equivalent. Instead of having to find *the* place I put something
important, I just start checking likely places I might have. Ease at a
cost of bulk.

>   * a single sent mailbox that is used for *all* mail that you 
> send (regardless of what role was used)

Omigawddlemitydam! I shudder in my boots at the thought. I run
screaming into the night. Endlessly I repeat the despairing howl "Help!
Help! I'm in the wrong joke!" 

I'd never find a blessed thing in any such outbox. And I spend days just
looking for one thing.

>   * a different sent mailbox for each of your recipients (e.g., 
> recipient1, recipient2, etc. would each contain all 
> correspondence To and From a particular recipient)

Not feasible, afaict, because of overlaps like the one with bblx, which
are common; I have them with lists I subscribe to, as well as with lists I
run.

>   * put all mail that you send in your INBOX (this is what I do 
> because it makes it easy for me to see the entire flow of 
> conversations)

Consider my reaction to a single outbox raised to the N factorial, where
N is the largest number you can find. You *live* with that??? I know
you're a prototypical superwoman, at least when it comes to email -- and
I suspect the rest of the time, too -- but I can't even imagine such a
thing. I'd shrivel up and blow away, deader than a fossil, if I tried to
imagine it.

My principle is the opposite : sort things into as many subdivisions as
I can devise. (Remember I used to catalog library books for a living!) 

The price of that approach, of course, is that I have to use every trick
I can think of to keep track of them (off the wall mnemonics inside
systems inside mnemonics inside ...). But it's the lesser evil for the way
my mind works.
 
> What are your thoughts about this Beartooth? And anyone else who reads
> this?

The whole broad topic of ways to "control" information, in the German
sense, and their pros and cons, would make a huge thread -- or maybe a
whole sublist. (Yes, I run sublists. <sigh>)

-- 
Beartooth Staffwright, Wordcrafty Squirreler
About some things, I know more than I wish -- 
and it still isn't enough, alas!