‎ > ‎

A free service to help one get organized using only one's existing email!'s email-tagging:
a powerful & free service to multiply-categorize messages even private notes using email addresses, courtesy of

  1. LF5KDW:  "eTags" are a 2010.12 invention of, and are provided by as a free service to the Internet community. 
    They work as follows: After you accept the terms of service,
  2. LF26DC:  Every note is also stored as an email message, where, if desired, both note & email:

    1. LF3Y0L:   can be be unalterably sealed and time-stamped by sending it, and
    2. LF3Y1U:  can be tagged as being under any <Category/> (any number of them) by just setting the email to send to <Category/>
  3. LF26MN:  The essentials:

    1. LF2CXE:  All email receives via <Anything/> doesn't go anyone (at most it may be examined for anonymous usage statistics, to ideally improve the service, but that's it). So how could that be useful? Well still,
    2. LF2CY6:  all other copies (as kept by the sender, and by recipients) will still have that email tagged/labeled with <Category/> as a recipient, and then
    3. LF2D0K:  you (and your recipients when you send to them) can find all the email tagged with <Category/>  --typically automatically & very quickly if using modern email clients as Gmail. So
    4. LF2D1V:  the "address" <Category/> instead turns into a tag/label/category for one's email messages, and
      1. LF2D2E:  one can create as many tags/labels/categories as desired, and
      2. LF2D8M:  one can put as many of them as desired on each message (as long as it's before the message is sent, otherwise just resend it),
      3. LF2D2Z:  this categorization is, when desired, readily seen & shared by all involved in the conversation so can benefit everyone (unlike the typical "organizing ones email inbox by internal labels & folders" which then only benefits one person and must be redone & reinvented by every person)

  4. LF26SK:  Pros thru cons:

    1. LF382I:  Big pro: add a Journaling  to any email client.
      1. LF381Y:  Turn your email (and that of your colleagues) into "a filing cabinet" not just for your email correspondence but for your private notes!
      2. LF384K:  Key for email clients as Gmail which don't (out of the box) have journaling (as say MS Outlook does)
    2. LF38AY:  Big pro: Notes are generally saved in super-standard HTML
    3. LF38LY:  Pro: Notes can embed graphics & attachments, and indeed use standard MIME format.
    4. LF388Q:  Better than most add-on Journals (of MS Outlook and other PIMs) in that this:
      1. LF386G:  Uses standard universal email messages for storage.
      2. LF38C1:  Categorization is readily shared with many people (just share what each category means, as share the contact for it)
    5. LF38NM:  Pro: Notes auto-save if you email client has this feature for email (Gmail & Outlook do)
    6. LF38ES:  Big Pro: Each category/tag can (and generally is) linked to a contact (generally 1, but it can be many)
    7. LF38TF:  Con: Notes aren't generally time-stamped (as the time of last edit) until sent (not in Gmail; are in Outlook).
    8. LF38G8:  Big Con: After a message is sent it has to be resend to change it, which creates multiple versions which are likely confusing.
    9. LF38OX:  Big Con: Notes lack versioning & multi-user editing unless your email client has that (Gmail & Outlook don't)

  5. LF37ZC:  How to use (in more detail):

    1. LF27GR:  By way of example:
      1. LF2786:  The email address I use for notes on this service is " LF22X3" <>; it's actually an entry in my email's contacts, and it's one I freely share to anyone who wants it. How is it used?  Well, very simply, if I (or anyone) wants to make notes on this service (which can be very private notes: just for whomever writes them, plus whomever they share them with) they can simply write those notes in an email to this address, and send (or not send, but sending gives it a datestamp and typically seals from further edits).  Only those sent to get those notes (and nobody else if it's just to addresses), but they are saved in the email boxes of whomever gets them. Where they can always be found by just searching for "".
    2. LF26FL:  In your email client, create a contact for each of your categories and give it a unique email address <Category/>
      1. LF26WY:  Be sure the contact has got a descriptive name. However,
      2. LF26I6:  For <Category/>, ideally just use a unique # such as the date & time (it could also be a random #, as long as its unique). This allow you to:
        1. LF26YE:  Keep that super short.
        2. LF26Z0:  Not spend a long time coming up with that name nor worry if any portion of it is wrong (as you misspelled something, or something about it too revealing).
        3. LF271Z:  Freely change the contact name without worry if stuff filed by this is misfiled.
        4. LF272Y:  When desired (see below) use just the email address (not the contact name), or rewrite that in the message, so to keep private aspects from other readers of your message.
      3. LF26KO:  For every of your existing contacts (a person or organization or whatever)  which which you want to file private notes under (where you don't want these notes sent to that contact), you can also give it one of these email addresses. 
    3. LF2773:  Now whenever you want to make a note about 1 or more things, just write an email where you "send it to" those contacts.
      1. LF27TK:  Naturally if you want those contacts to see it, use their actual email addresses or other contact means. But if not, or in all cases,

      2. LF27UC:  if you want to make a note on him/her/it, send to the address.
        1. LF27V6:  You generally don't have to remember the address and it's code, because in modern email clients as Gmail, just type word or two from the contact's name and the email client will fill in the name & address for you, like saying quote["Sharon Southgate" <>]
        2. LF27XX:  Let's say want to email someone about Sharon but you don't want to reveal her last name. Then
          1. LF282F:  you could just edit this to quote["Sharon" <>] (as you'll still be able to find it as what you search for is just "")
        3. LF289J
            an initial drawback of this notetaking approach is that, if you happen to be emailing to someone who is unfamiliar with, they may miswonder "Who are these other people you're sending this email to me to?" when in fact there isn't anyone else. So we offer two solutions:
          1. LF28SA:  we've created this site to tell them and
            1. LF28EU:  you can add to your email
              (The address(s) of this email DON'T go to anyone but instead are here for filing this email message since the person-or-thing(s) denoted by these address(es) are referred to in this email. Instead of messaging someone, address(s) are "eTags" for free super-organizing/classifying/tagging of email & private notes alike using only one's ordinary email service --see for details. So, in your reply, kindly use "Reply to ALL" so these eTags (plus anyone else CC'd) will be referred-to/copied in your reply if your reply also refers/pertains to them.)
            2. LF28HV:  There is also some chance (hopefully) they'd discover this own by curiosity and so keying in in their browser.
            3. LF28L8:  if that's not enough,
        1. LF2838:  or instead you could put the quote["Sharon Southgate" <>] in the BCC field of your email. However the drawback is that when the person replies, even if they do reply all, the email address won't be in their message so it won't automatically get filed under her even if they talk about her, too (which they probably are).
    4. LF465H:  Publishing standard email addresses for private notes.  "For taking notes on us, email"
      1. LF4669:  As an advanced use, I could imagine imaging adding to large public directories as a standard email address for taking notes on that entry. 
        1. LF46CA:  This could be done now just by convention.
          1. LF46GK:  Say if one wanted to take notes an entry such as (a particular restaurant),
            1. LF46KX:  as a standard one could just email say
              1. LF46JY: ; as long as no one used "cid=" for some other purpose, this convention is quite good
              2. LF46MC: might be even better as then could announce "cid." would be officially used for this purpose.
            2. LF46O6:  and from either address, as long as we knew the convention was followed, we could easily get back to to get all sorts of other standard details on the venue.
  6. LF42A2:  Similar technologies:

    1. LF42AN:  To my surprise, I've never heard of anything quite like this, however somewhat similar is:
    2. LF42F2:
      1. LF42TI: post presents some uses of this (for Gmail), including most relevant "I use the "+" method all the time to send emails to myself to different filters. "
      2. LF42FY:   Pros thru cons (in comparison)
        1. LF42GV:  Pro: Don't require a separate service such as this.
        2. LF433H:  Con: "This isn't allowed by all website's forms however, some flag a + as an invalid character. " says commenter.
        3. LF42HI:  Killer Con: send a copy to say the creator, which is
          1. LF42KY:  unnecessary (just duplication) for that person and
          2. LF42LB:  a risk when used by others
            1. LF42ZM:  Killer: their messages are sent to the creator, plus
            2. LF4303:  the creator's underlying email address is exposed (so even if one uses this technique for one's own private notes only he/she can see, if those notes are ever shared with others, one's underlying email address (as their gmail, which may be secret just as one guards one's home address) will be exposed if it was used here.
    3. LF44L0:  Labels as used by Gmail
      1. LF457B:  "Gmail's labeling system could integrate marvelously with IMAP clients if only it used IMAP keywords" says 2008 post.
      2. LF457M:  Pros thru cons (in comparison)
        1. LF44ME:  Big pro: can be added to an email at any time, even after it's been sent or received.
        2. LF44NN:  Con: seemingly unsharable (except maybe by various viewers of the the same message store)
        3. LF44QL:  Con: Seeminly don't have a name separate from the their name and not renamable.
        4. LF44OB:  Big con: not tied to a contact, so can't search easily (unlike searching thru contacts) and can't add descriptive details
    4. LF44Y8:  "IMAP keywords" (part of message state info
      1. LF45JL:  Seem to be increasingly common, say  as used at
      2. LF460R:  Google Search[IMAP keywords] finds 6th this 2006 post which seems to be by someone carefully looking at this.
      3. LF45KD:  Pros thru cons (in comparison): see
        1. LF45M9:  Seem to be the same as those for Gmail labels.
  7. LF5MY3:  Terms of Service

    1. LF5MZR:  This is a free service to the Internet community. Especially then,
    2. LF5N03:  If you use or recommend or endorse this service, then you accept all the following terms:
      1. LF5MYH:  Currently these terms of service can be updated without notice.
      2. LF5N80:  You acknowledge that there will always be some security risk by sending email to some 3rd party address (including despite all precautions to make it safe and that if you do nonetheless, you fully accept that risk; and
      3. LF5N7S:  You release the makers from all liability and claims of liability, including:
      4. LF5ONO:  You accept for this GPL sections "15. Disclaimer of Warranty.", "16. Limitation of Liability.", & "17. Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16."
    1. LF5UQK:  While having warranties seems unrealistic at this early stage (given how easy it is today for people to make false claims & inappropriate lawsuits, that is with little risk), the makers hope to eventually offer good warranties and indeed hope appropriate warranties would be expected for a provider to hold any significant market share.
  8. LF45SI:  Some history of this

    1. LF3V45:  I rename from "eFile" (so to "eTag" (as
      1. LF3V66:  Why? 
        1. LF3VSY:  a few hours of deliberating this since since this name will be used as a permanent ID in 1000s to billions of places. Key factors?
        2. LF3V70:  Most especially, more accurate: It describes "an email address which serves as a tag=etag"
          1. LF3VAO:  Why not the even shorter name of just "tag"? That's accurate but too generic and there are a lot of concepts going on here tied to email address.
          2. LF3VO8:  Why not the catchy name "iTag"? That sounds more linked with Apple (which is NOT the case) and not linked to email (which IS the case)
          3. LF3VLV:  While the goal is filing (say as was done via filing cabinets),
            1. LF3VX9:  today we tend to think filing (of at least electronic stuff) should be automated (say all we need to do is "tag", exactly what we're doing here)
              1. LF3VZ2:  filing suggests moving or submitting something which we're notably NOT doing here (any received stuff is deleted) just "tagging for filing"
        3. LF3V8L:  Shorter: same # of sylabils but 4 characters instead of 3
        4. LF3VD5:  "E-tag" xisting meanings (the leading one "HTTP ETag, the HTTP ETag response header" is too technical for most people) is weaker than "e-file" existing meanings (which include "IRS e-file, an electronic tax filing system of the United States Internal Revenue Service" which many Americans have heard of)
      2. LF3W0A:  How?
        1. LF3W0S:  see complete details in email LF3W43.  One key note, q[LF3X5N:  ... set to redirect to; now full backwards-compatibility is in place. ]
  9. LF28YP:  And more documentation coming soon!