internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
List archive
- From: "Alan MacHett" <machett AT ibiblio.org>
- To: internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: [internetworkers] Re: Replying to e-mails
- Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:22:54 -0500 (EST)
In response to Tanner Lovelace's message(s):
> ...if you "reply" to a message, those of us with threaded e-mail
> readers then see your new e-mail listed under a previous thread.
>
Someone with mail system skills, please, explain this to me. (I suppose
it would help to know what mail client Tanner uses.) Is it the fault of
Tanner's client (recipient) or of Tony's (sender)? What about an email
determines its attachment or not to a given thread? The INW archives
support Tanner's complaint:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/internetworkers/2004-March/thread.html#14556
I routinely start new threads as replies to old ones (thereby saving
myself those few precious seconds of typing an address or pulling it from
the addressbook ;), yet I haven't received any comment from Tanner. This
leads me to believe either
(a) Tanner never receives my messages,
(b) Tanner ignores | dev/nulls my messages, or
(c) something about one or the other of our mail clients allows my
messages to be properly re-threaded.
curious in a technical, but not too technical, sort of way,
Alan
-
RE: Replying to e-mails (was Re: [internetworkers] HTML artists)
, (continued)
- RE: Replying to e-mails (was Re: [internetworkers] HTML artists), Michael Best, 03/09/2004
- RE: Replying to e-mails (was Re: [internetworkers] HTML artists), zman, 03/09/2004
- RE: Replying to e-mails (was Re: [internetworkers] HTML artists), Jim Ray, 03/09/2004
- RE: Replying to e-mails (was Re: [internetworkers] HTML artists), Michael Best, 03/10/2004
- RE: Replying to e-mails (was Re: [internetworkers] HTML artists), Michael D. Thomas, 03/10/2004
- RE: Replying to e-mails (was Re: [internetworkers] HTML artists), Jim Ray, 03/09/2004
- Re: Replying to e-mails (was Re: [internetworkers] HTML artists), Tanner Lovelace, 03/08/2004
- Re: Replying to e-mails (was Re: [internetworkers] HTML artists), Paul Smith, 03/08/2004
- RE: Replying to e-mails (was Re: [internetworkers] HTML artists), zman, 03/08/2004
- Re: Replying to e-mails (was Re: [internetworkers] HTML artists), Tom Boucher, 03/10/2004
- [internetworkers] Re: Replying to e-mails, Alan MacHett, 03/08/2004
- RE: [internetworkers] Re: Replying to e-mails, Tony Spencer, 03/08/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: Replying to e-mails, Chris Grindstaff, 03/08/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: Replying to e-mails, Tanner Lovelace, 03/08/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] Re: Replying to e-mails, Alan MacHett, 03/08/2004
- RE: [internetworkers] HTML artists, Shea Tisdale, 03/08/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] fury over WTC ads, Steven Champeon, 03/08/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] fury over WTC ads, zman, 03/08/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] fury over WTC ads, James Dasher, 03/09/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] fury over WTC ads, zman, 03/08/2004
- [internetworkers] FUD101, Don Rua, 03/09/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.