I’ve been using Gmail for most of my mailing lists. There’s a very good reason for this. It groups things into discussions beautifully. I also subscribe to several mailing lists that reside on the same server. For example, I subscribe to BBEdit Talk and Yojimbo Talk, both of which are run by Bare Bones (shocking, considering they develop them).
They don’t have a domain that’s dedicated to mailing lists, so the addresses are productname-talk@barebones.com. I’m also a compulsive filer, so I apply labels to these messages for quick manipulation. One label is “mailing lists”. Rather than map email “To:” each of these email addresses, I’ve been using the fact that filters work on a contains instead of match basis to simplify. For the longest time a filter that looked for “To: talk@barebones.com” worked perfectly. It’s suddenly stopped working. It’s now an exact match.
Dear Google,
Don’t change filter behavior without notifying your users and giving them an alternative method to attain the same functionality.
Thanks,
Derik
Here’s the wacky part. If you filter based upon an email string with nothing preceding the at sign, such as “@barebones.com”, the filter becomes a contain based filter. Ugh. Say it with me: inconsistent.
I was willing to cut Google some slack with their filters and the fact that it can’t filter based on arbitrary headers (like the list headers that most mailing lists slap on for easy filtering). It’s annoying, but something I could live with. Now the filters are essentially useless. Why? It’s not hard to implement powerful, flexible filters. As accurate and fast as their search is, I still want to organize my email to help prune. It makes the results more manageable. It’s almost as if Google is intentionally trying make its filters impotent to the point that users have to stop using it, at which point, Google can axe it completely.
Thanks to my article about a bullshit Steve Jobs interview, I’ve gotten my first threat.
12:11:04 AM mmskmmskmmsk: dlong
12:11:08 AM mmskmmskmmsk: get the fuck outta here
12:11:16 AM mmskmmskmmsk: posting garbage on digg
12:11:24 AM mmskmmskmmsk: trying to promote your own shitty site
12:11:44 AM mmskmmskmmsk: like you broke a story or something
12:11:48 AM mmskmmskmmsk: you didnt break shit
12:12:00 AM mmskmmskmmsk: the article on that site was not proven fake
12:12:11 AM dbasstard: oh, you’re an ewoky guy!
Changed status to Online (12:12:11 AM)
12:12:12 AM mmskmmskmmsk: so stop trying to get press off it like you owned them
12:12:15 AM mmskmmskmmsk: nope
12:12:24 AM mmskmmskmmsk: but ive followed this since last night
12:12:34 AM mmskmmskmmsk: and you’re acting like a retard trying to cash in
12:12:51 AM dbasstard: so, is it Chris? or Lethal?
12:13:00 AM dbasstard: why are you so obsessed about this?
12:13:05 AM mmskmmskmmsk: because you are
12:13:15 AM mmskmmskmmsk: because you’re trying to fuck up someones site
12:13:21 AM mmskmmskmmsk: the shit was explained
12:13:29 AM mmskmmskmmsk: but no, you had to go and fuck with them
12:13:30 AM dbasstard: no, I’m pointing out a fraudulent article
12:13:38 AM mmskmmskmmsk: no you’re not
12:13:41 AM mmskmmskmmsk: it wasnt proven
12:13:45 AM mmskmmskmmsk: its speculation
12:13:50 AM dbasstard: dude, I wrote to Apple
12:13:58 AM mmskmmskmmsk: and why are you on it anyway? bored? no real news to report?
12:13:59 AM dbasstard: it was fraudulent
12:14:03 AM mmskmmskmmsk: you suck as a reporter
12:14:09 AM mmskmmskmmsk: prove it then
12:14:15 AM mmskmmskmmsk: you suck as a journalist
12:14:27 AM mmskmmskmmsk: be a man
12:14:30 AM dbasstard: how would you like it proven?
12:14:30 AM mmskmmskmmsk: dont be a girl
12:14:38 AM mmskmmskmmsk: actual evidence
12:14:43 AM dbasstard: like what?
12:14:51 AM mmskmmskmmsk: fuck you anyway, your article will die soon
12:14:56 AM dbasstard: besides the email from Apple PR?
12:15:03 AM mmskmmskmmsk: fucking wannabe reporter
12:15:06 AM mmskmmskmmsk: watch your back
12:15:10 AM mmskmmskmmsk: dont fuck with people asshole
12:15:14 AM mmskmmskmmsk: warning u
Changed status to Offline (12:15:20 AM)
Real mature.
