Thunder chicken

[Tim]

Frode Petersen:
>>>> For messages where one of the rules apply
>>>> Rule 1: 'List-Id' contains 'fedora-list.redhat.com'
>>>> Rule 2:	'To' contains 'fedora-list at redhat.com'
>>>> Move to chosen folder.

Anne Wilson:
>>> I'd add
>>> Rule 3:  'CC' contains 'fedora-list at redhat.com'

Tim:
>> I wouldn't filter a list with either of the 2nd or 3rd rules.  It makes
>> for mistakes:
>>
>> If you're on lists with list-id headers, they're redundant, at best.

Anne Wilson:
> So Rule 1 matches.

And is all that's needed, for lists that have them.  I'd only set up
different rules for other lists (without them).

>> If you're on both lists that something gets crossposted to, all the mail
>> goes to one folder, instead of one to each appropriate folder.

> True, but I've never found it to be a huge problem.

It might be if you're trying to follow a thread.  At least, if you're
aware of this, you know where to look.  But it's a surprise that's
easily avoided.

>> Private replies including a list address as a recipient get treated as
>> list mail, and that mayn't be appropriate.  I've seen quite a few people
>> get their knickers in a twist because someone replied publically to what
>> they sent privately, because the respondent never noticed it.

> That one is serious.  So what's your solution where List-Id doesn't exist?

Most lists seem to have them.  For those that don't, I use specific
rules using the to or reply-to addresses.  I don't use generic recipient
rules, because then any match counts (to, cc, etc.), even when they're
not really appropriate.

>> Likewise for spam.  It erroneously ends up in your list mail folder.

> That I've never found.

You're lucky, then.  I've seen spam that's harvested addresses from
lists (list addresses and participants addresses).

-- 
(This box runs FC5, my others run FC4 & FC6, in case that's
 important to the thread.)

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.