breaking the threads...
Alexander Skwar (ML)
alexanders.mailinglists+nospam at gmail.com
Thu Mar 15 14:53:06 UTC 2012
Am 15.03.2012 15:46, schrieb Cybe R. Wizard:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:59:00 +0100
> "Alexander Skwar (ML)"<alexanders.mailinglists+nospam at gmail.com> 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).
>>> 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.
> Not according to the mailing list 'guidelines' found here:
> which explicitly states:
> "When starting a new subject, do not reply to a previous email from the
> mailing list. If you do, your email may form part of a previous thread.
> To start a new subject, use a clean email."
You've said that before.
I'm lazy, and so I'll copy-paste my answer to this:
I think the "discussion" is about how "start a new subject" is to be
I think, we're quite clear, that it's bad form to hit reply, throw away
the old bady and change the subject, while the "new" message has nothing
at all to do with the old thread.
In this case, a new mail should be sent, so that a new thread starts.
But that's just _not_ what MR has done. Let's take this message:
Message-ID: <4F5F8273.1010704 at gmail.com>
Subject: I would much appreciate to be warned...
Of course he changed the subject. But if you read the mail, you can
easily see, that this is done, because the thread "evolved". From
"disable top panel application-window menu" to something else.
If we disregard, that he IMO has chosen a bad subject, he did everything
right. This mail of his is *NOT* a new subject. A new thread should
*NOT* be started in this case.
>>> 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.
> That's certainly right /about replying to digest posts/:
Is it. Okay. Thanks.
> "Replying to digest emails breaks the threading.
> Changing the subject
> When a reply takes the email away from the original subject, change the
> subject line in your email. This helps people reading the mailing list
> to identify the most relevant emails for them.
Okay. So what's there to argue about?
> When changing the subject, keep the original subject in brackets. For
> example, if the original subject was 'Ubuntu rocks', your subject
> should be 'Ubuntu could be made better (was Ubuntu rocks)'."
Actually, it should rather be:
Ubuntu could be made better (was: Ubuntu rocks)
Note the ":" after "was". At least that's how it always used to be done.
☄ Google+ ↣ http://plus.skwar.me ☄
☛ Lifestream (Twitter, …) ↣ http://sup.skwar.me ☛
⚰ Twitter: @alexs77 ↣ http://twitter.com/alexs77 ⚰
☞ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.skwar at gmail.com ☞
More information about the ubuntu-users