changing the subject line

[Alexander Skwar]

Hi

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 17:55, Dave Woyciesjes <woyciesjes at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 12:13 PM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Am 14.03.2012 17:09 schrieb "Johnny Rosenberg" <gurus.knugum at gmail.com
>>  >
>>  > 2012/3/14 Dave Woyciesjes <woyciesjes at sbcglobal.net
>>  > > On 03/14/2012 09:37 AM, M.R. wrote:
>>  > >>
>>  > >> On 03/14/2012 04:29 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
>>  > >>>
>>  > >>> I am not a Moderator but I do have to make this firm request...
>>  > >>
>>  > >>
>>  > >> I'm glad you are not (the moderator :). You and I are in no
>>  > >> position here to make requests (firm or otherwise), only the
>>  > >> suggestions.
>>  > >>
>>  > >> May I point out that the purpose of the subject line is to
>>  > >> succinctly outline the main point of the post text....
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  > >        Correct. That's why it's called a Subject line.
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  > >> And that,
>>  > >> of course, varies from post to post.
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  > >        If that is what's happening (content of the message not having
>> a
>>  > > relation to the Subject line), then the person making that goof
>> should have
>>  > > started with a brand new message to create a new thread.
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  > >>
>>  > >> Mail client program's role is to keep a tread together using the
>>  > >> information in message headers. If properly used subject lines
>>  > >> bother you, I guess you either have a sub-standard mail client
>>  > >> program, or could productively spend some time learning to use
>>  > >> its features?
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  > >        A thread is a conversation about _one_ topic, which is
>> what's in the
>>  > > Subject line.
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  >
>>  > What an idiot thread. I'll filter it out immediately, so please don't
>>  > change its subject line!
>>
>> Do so! Yet another reason, why it would be wrong, to always start new
>> threads. If a thread is continued, even with changed subject line, then
>> this can be easily done.
>>
>        Therein lies the problem with the way you are thinking about
> threading & subject lines. Take this hypothetical:
>        Say someone replies to this message with a solid method to improve
> Unity, and after 5 replies, we come up with a fabulous plan. (Yeah, I know,
> that's a long-shot miracle...). Now, since Johnny is ignoring this thread,
> he doesn't find out about the magic sauce to improve his life on Ubuntu.
>        But, if our way of using threading was followed, that magic sauce
> would show up in a brand new thread that Johnny would get, yet he still is
> not getting the rest of this one.

Well, if that sauce stuff is in no way related to the original topic (Unity),
then, yes, of course a new thread is to be started. If it evolved from the
Unity thread, then of course *no* new thread is to be started and instead
simply the subject is to be changed.

Normally, back in the old days, the "rule" would be, to add the old subject
in () with a "was: " before. Clients then used to be able to throw away the
old subject.

Eg.:

1 Subject: Unity
2 Subject: Re: Unity
3 Subject Sauce (was: Unity)

"3" was a reply to "2".

Good clients could then, when they reply to "3" automatically do this:

4 Subject: Re: Sauce


>        Understand?

Yep. Do you?

Alexander
--
↯    Lifestream (Twitter, Blog, …) ↣ http://alexs77.soup.io/     ↯
↯ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.skwar at gmail.com , AIM: alexws77  ↯