breaking the threads...

Alexander Skwar alexanders.mailinglists+nospam at
Wed Mar 14 19:13:04 UTC 2012


On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 17:38, Dave Woyciesjes <woyciesjes at> wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 11:50 AM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>> Am 14.03.2012 16:38 schrieb "Dave Woyciesjes" <woyciesjes at
>> <mailto:woyciesjes at>>:
>>  >
>>  > On 03/14/2012 10:59 AM, Alexander Skwar (ML) wrote:
>>  >>
>>  >> Am 14.03.2012 15:52, schrieb Robert P. J. Day:
>>  >>>
>>  >>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, M.R. wrote:
>>  >>>
>>  >>>> However, I *will change* my usage of the subject line if told so by
>>  >>>> the list owner/moderator, or if another participant points me to
>>  >>>> where the list owner has a documented directive that the subject
>>  >>>> lines must not be changed inside a thread. (This would be the only
>>  >>>> list with such rule I'm aware of, but I guess that's what a list
>>  >>>> owner has the right to do).
>>  >>>>
>>  >>>> M.R.
>>  >>>
>>  >>>
>>  >>> first, you need to get out more often as everyone else is correct
>>  >>> and you are wrong.
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >> Actually, that's not a correct statement. At least Liam and Basil
>>  >> are on a wrong track.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >        Really? Where & how?
>> You know perfectly well where.
>        No, I don't. That's why I'm asking.


>>  >>> second, and more critically, you seem to be taking an amazingly
>>  >>> obstinate position on something that would be trivially easy to
>>  >>> change. all people are asking you to do is use a new message to start
>>  >>> a new thread.
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >> But, if you have a look, he didn't start a new thread! The subject
>>  >> line is supposed to be a brief "overview" of what's in the mail.
>>  >> If the topic (or, maybe we might even call it "subject") changes,
>>  >> it's correct to change the subject contents.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >        No, the correct method is: If you are wanting to reply to a
>>  > message in a thread, and your reply is taking the discussion to a new
>>  > direction necessitating a Subject line change; then the polite & proper
>>  > this to do is open a new message window, copy the body contents of what
>>  > you are replying to, paste in to the new message window. Then add your
>>  > reply & send.
>> No, that is not correct.
>> Correct procedure: Change the subject line, but do not produce a new
>> mail. This way, the threading stays intact. After all, the changed mail
>> used to have to do something with the previous mail.
>        The point of threading is to group messages that relate to a specific
> subject. Yes, the changed _used_ to have something to do with the original,
> but the key word/phrase there is 'used to'.

Yep, "used to" is the key. That's why it's correct to change the
subject and that's why MUAs keep the threading intact, by not
removing the headers used for threading (In-Reply-To and/or

>        Why would you want a message about KDE in your grouping of messages
> about Acrobat?

If it relates, then that's exactly the reason.

>> The way you suggested makes sure that threading brakes, which is bad.
>        Sounds like you have an uncommon definition of threading.

If *you* say so…

>>  >> What confuses me - why this "hate"? He's not doing anything
>>  >> wrong! On the contrary, he's completely right!
>>  >>
>>  >> Alexander
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >        Hate? I see no hate. Just people asking someone to follow the
>> group's guidelines; and follow common & long standing list-serve
>> etiquette.
>> Hate was the wrong word.
>        I didn't think that's the word you really wanted.

Correct. I really do blame it on the fact, that english
isn't my mother tongue.

>> Point is: people complain, although Mr follows common & long standing
>> list-serve etiquette. People even suggest to break this etiquette.
>        Hmmm, now this _is curious. You & MR say he is following the common
> etiquette; yet pretty much everyone else here says our method is following
> the common etiquette....

Indeed. This _is_ curious. Please also keep in mind, how
the mail clients actually act. They do *not* remove the
"threading headers". Especially for that reason.

>> Quite simple: if the subject of a sub-thread changes, then change the
>> subject line. But do Not start a new thread!
>        So, you're saying that this whole mailing list, and any messages
> coming after this; should all be part of one thread?

If they relate to this thread - why, yes, of course!

>> He seems to follow this old rule. So please stop moaning.
>        If you want to bolster your side of this argument, please provide
> everyone with references to articles & such (hopefully they will have
> dates).
>        The only way to win an argument like this is to provide irrefutable
> proof that you are correct.

Like you provided arguments… Up to now, you haven't provided
any proof either. I can just refer to how mailing lists always used
to behave, or, rather, what's the common way of dealing with this
"issue" was. It contradicts to what you seem to assume to be the
common way.

↯    Lifestream (Twitter, Blog, …) ↣     ↯
↯ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.skwar at , AIM: alexws77  ↯

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list