breaking the threads...

[Alexander Skwar]

Hi

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 20:56, Dave Woyciesjes <woyciesjes at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 03/14/2012 03:13 PM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 17:38, Dave Woyciesjes<woyciesjes at sbcglobal.net>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/14/2012 11:50 AM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 14.03.2012 16:38 schrieb "Dave Woyciesjes"<woyciesjes at sbcglobal.net
>>>> <mailto:woyciesjes at sbcglobal.net>>:
>>>>
>>>>  >
>>>>  >  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).


>>>>  >>>  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
>> References).
>>
>
>        So, then, pray tell, if a new message used to have something to do
> with a specific thread, but no longer does; Why would you want them to be
> connected?

Why should I tell you this? I didn't ask for this. So, why would
you want them to be connected?

>>>        Why would you want a message about KDE in your grouping of
>>> messages
>>> about Acrobat?
>>
>>
>> If it relates, then that's exactly the reason.
>
>
>        If it relates, then the Subject shouldn't (need) to be changed.

>From time to time, it should. The subject of a discussion may change.

>>>> 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…
>
>        And just about everyone else here.

Nope.

>>>> 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.
>
>
>        Yes, I've known for a while now that mail clients don't remove
> threading info. That's the whole reason behind the idea of starting a new
> thread for a different topic.

Yep. For a different topic. No argument here. Sometimes, people
may not want to start a new thread. There are reasons for and
reasons against doing so. It pretty much depends on the context
or intention.

> Is this what banging your head on a brick wall feels like?

Aha. If _you_ say so.

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