Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 02:22 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
and I'm not doubting that it is. That being said, mostThat's a straw-man argument: I don't think anyone expects people to remember message numbers.
Shal, you really need to look up the meaning of "strawman." I doubt that there are many users who do not use message view who even know that message numbers exist. They're a weirdness as far as I'm concerned, and when I've seen reference to them in the past my reaction was, "What's that? Why not just provide the click through link." If it's important enough to cite, it's important enough to give the reader a direct link to. Utility to be broader audience should be a primary concern of a venue such as this one, and message numbers are, without doubt, not broadly utilitarian. They can stay, I don't care about them, but you can't convince me that they have much broad utility at all.
Also, for anyone "unwilling to trust a link sent in email" that's their problem, not mine or any other poster's. I've had knock-down drag outs on several of the groups here because people have had the inane idea that "unmasked" URLs were somehow "safer" than ones using click-through text and didn't like click-through text being used. If one doesn't trust the source of the link then one shouldn't click it, but if one does there's really no reason to believe that they'd include a malicious link in a message that has seemingly been composed by them. I'm not about to make a message more unreadable by including "naked" urls rather than including them in the via click-through text where the text makes quite obvious what the intent is. I'm not an unknown after a while, and neither are "the regulars" on any forum or mailing list.
I really don't care, one way or another, whether message number is a separate box or not. It could be argued that it's better that way because it establishes a very specific context and it's entirely possible for someone to use #[insert some memorable digit sequence here] in a post that someone might search on.
A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo. ~ Bill Gray