[HIJACKED!] What are the best OSS discussion group apps?

[Bart Silverstrim]

Liam Proven wrote:
> On 14/01/2008, Bart Silverstrim <bsilver at chrononomicon.com> wrote:

> I understand it just fine, thanks. 

So you knew about list-id in the headers and that gmail doesn't respect 
that header in its' handling of threaded messages?

Again, I don't use Gmail, but someone else said that it groups by 
subject line an ignores the list-id header.  This further encourages 
users to screw up non-gmail using members of mailing lists presentation 
of messages by simply changing the subject line and since, hey, it looks 
like it worked, it must be alright.

This is frowned on by other members of the list.  This is one of the 
arguments against users of Outlook, since the defaults strongly 
encourage top posting of replies.  It works, but it still annoys the 
hell out of people who organize their thoughts in an inline fashion to 
address points on a point-by-point manner and trim out excess cruft.

>My primary email address is one
> I've been using since 1991; it was my second, my first being one I got
> at University in 1985, at which time I started to explore the
> Internet. I've been using online discussions and mailing lists for
> some twenty years now, since long before the Web or indeed Linux
> existed.

I believe Linux was around in 1991, six years from when you got the 
first one at University.  I suppose in technology terms, that would be a 
long time, but I personally wouldn't call the time between 85 and the 
90's all that long...

> How Gmail does its threading is a matter for the Gmail developers, not
> me. However, as a happy user, I will defend its behaviour against
> criticism, especially ill-informed criticism.

I already said I'm not a user of Gmail, but I definitely have heard many 
others gripe about this particular matter.  And the handling of 
threading ISN'T a matter just for the developers. It's a matter for the 
users, as well as the recipients, since they have to handle the results 
of the developers' work.

You may have great spam filters.  You may poo on everyone else who has a 
problem with spammers, gloating how wonderful your setup is and that you 
never have been and never will be infected by a trojan.  Doesn't mean 
your connection isn't getting occasionally pounded to nuts by spam probe 
ATTEMPTS from other idiots with either a self-centered lackadaisical 
attitude or a purely ignorant view of becoming infected with zombie 
software.

Your workflow may integrate wonderfully with how Gmail handles threaded 
lists.  It may integrate perfectly with the way you think.  But don't 
for a minute think it doesn't have some affect on others when you're 
using it since, by definition, to interact with other people.

The point is that your personal computer may be set up to "just work" 
fine with your way of working.  But if you're on the network, you're not 
unaffected by others and others are affected by you.  Threadjacking is 
annoying to people on the list, and seeing as the threadjackers tend to 
be looking for help on the list, they should conform to the loose 
standards asked for by the members of the list or risk having the gurus 
file you in their dumbass filters and ignore you.  No one is paid to 
help others on the list.

> I do not know what MUA the person who started this thread uses. I
> suspect only he does. 

Again, many times you can find it in the headers.  The clients often 
leave a kind of "fingerprint" behind.

>So it is pointless to debate whether Gmail
> correctly modifies or does not modify the message IDs, since we don't
> know if it's Gmail that started the thread or not.

I'm pretty sure I saw in this thread where someone posted the evidence, 
and it's been stated that Gmail does display this behavior, and you 
turned the topic away from being "the threadjacker used this mail 
client" to "gmail handles threading fine, the rest of you are blowing 
smoke from your arse!!"  I suspect if you had stated that you hadn't 
noticed said behavior before and asked for clarification, it wouldn't 
have sounded quite so hostile to begin with...but I really am not sure 
of the wisdom of telling a group of geeks that they are outrightly wrong 
and not expecting several to step up with flamethrowers ready to try 
their darndest to stamp you into the ground to show you just how you, in 
fact, are the one in the wrong and eventually some self-appointed 
listmom will start bitching about this thread going on and on off topic 
and in the process making said thread longer rather than letting it just 
flame out on its' own.

> If someone starts a new thread by replying to an existing message and
> changing the subject, that is their error, not Gmail's, and again, it
> is incorrect to criticise the way that Gmail handles the situation;
> it's a user error. If Gmail respects the thread ID then it's doing the
> right thing.

Of course it's user error.  But that's not the issue as much as it is, 
as much as many open-source developers hate to address this, an 
interface issue.  Letting users do this without error or guidance is 
encouraging them to continue to do it much as Outlook encourages users 
to treat mail clients as underwear for their mental farts by spitting 
their quick instant-message like thoughts to the top of an untrimmed 
reply rather than actually compose a response properly.

What is confusing me here is that you're saying "If Gmail respects the 
thread ID then it's doing the right thing."  Yes...the criticism was 
that it DOESN'T respect the ID.  It groups by subject line.

Once again I'm obligated to repeat, since no doubt someone is itching to 
criticize me on this, that my repeating the criticism is second hand 
since I don't use Gmail and never really felt the need to use it.  This 
is simply restating what I understand the problem to be from this thread.

>>> But this isn't very germane to Ubuntu!
>> No, but it is relevant to etiquette in using the Ubuntu (or just about
>> any) mailing list for help or interaction with other users.
> 
> I hardly see why. All you have established is that some people don't
> know how to start a new thread and do so by replying to a message and
> changing the subject. That's wrong; nobody is disagreeing with that.
> The fact that certain email agents see this as a new thread - which is
> what I prefer - and others ignore the subject and thread by message ID
> - which appears to be what you prefer - is irrelevant.
> 
> The only relevant fact here is the correct way to start a new thread.
> How different tools handle it when people don't do this is not a
> relevant subject and it's certainly not grounds to attack a powerful
> and useful free tool. There is no excuse for spreading disinformation
> like "Gmail is no good for mailing lists".
>