internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
List archive
- From: Chris Grindstaff <chris AT gstaff.org>
- To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Re: Replying to e-mails
- Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:40:12 -0500
Monday, March 8, 2004, 1:22:54 PM, you wrote:
AM> 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.
>>
AM> Someone with mail system skills, please, explain this to me. (I suppose
AM> it would help to know what mail client Tanner uses.) Is it the fault of
AM> Tanner's client (recipient) or of Tony's (sender)? What about an email
AM> determines its attachment or not to a given thread? The INW archives
AM> support Tanner's complaint:
AM>
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/internetworkers/2004-March/thread.html#14556
AM> I routinely start new threads as replies to old ones (thereby saving
AM> myself those few precious seconds of typing an address or pulling it from
AM> the addressbook ;), yet I haven't received any comment from Tanner. This
AM> leads me to believe either
AM> (a) Tanner never receives my messages,
AM> (b) Tanner ignores | dev/nulls my messages, or
AM> (c) something about one or the other of our mail clients allows my
AM> messages to be properly re-threaded.
AM> curious in a technical, but not too technical, sort of way,
AM> Alan
Alan,
My understanding of the issue is that it's a problem with how the
message is sent. As Tanner said, don't start a new message by replying
to an old one.
Individual clients could try to use better algorithms to determine
threading but this particular case would be difficult since you
sometimes want to change the subject of a threaded message and still
maintain threading.
A technical description here: <http://www.jwz.org/doc/threading.html>
Chris
--
Chris Grindstaff | http://gstaff.org
-
RE: Replying to e-mails (was Re: [internetworkers] HTML artists)
, (continued)
- 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
- Re: [internetworkers] FUD101, zman, 03/09/2004
- Re: [internetworkers] FUD101, James Dasher, 03/09/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.