On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:52:01 -0400 Chris Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:24:06 +1000
> Clement <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Wayne Topa wrote:
> >>
> >>On both occasions you hi-jacked another thread rather then
> >>starting a new one (bad practice).
> >
> >
> > I DID NOT hi-jack anything.
>
> Yes, you did.
Not according to Sylpheed. Both times he started new threads
> > If the subject I used is the same as a
> > previous email, it is pure coincidence. I will search the archives.
> >
> > Please do not assume too much.
>
> Hijacking a thread has *nothing* to do with using a subject that's the
> same as an earlier thread or message.
>
> Hijacking a thread is when one posts a message on a new topic,
> with a new subject line, by "Replying" to an existing message in
> the list rather than by posting an entirely new message.
>
> The first time you posted your HylaFax problems, you did so by
> replying to a post of Paul Condon's in the "ALSA setup problem"
> thread. This is made clear by the "References:" header in that
> email:
>
> } From: Clement <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> } Subject: HylaFax receives rubbish
> } References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>}
> } Just tried Hylafax. After spending hours to play around, I finally
> got
> [ snip ]
>
> If you had simply sent a "new" message, rather than replying, no
> "References:" header would be present. That header tells mail
> software that your message is a reply to another message, which had
> Message ID <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (which in turn
> was a reply to a message with Message ID
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and so on). In other words, in that
> thread, I replied to Paul Condon, he replied to me, and then you
> replied to him -- but with a new subject line, and a topic of
> discussion that had nothing to do with the topic previously discussed
> in the thread. That's hijacking a thread.
>
> Similarly, your other post was a reply to a post by Pascal Hakim,
> in the thread 'can't post to "linux.debian.user" "solved"'. Your
> references header there was:
>
> } References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> That, too, was hijacking a thread.
>
> Incidentally, this one -- the one you posted in reply to Pascal
> Hakim -- was the one that Wayne Topa replied to, letting you know
> what was up. Your reply to him, however, had "References:" assigned
> to it so that it's indexed as a reply to yourself, in the *other*
> thread.
>
> It looks like you're having some difficulties with your mail
> reader.
>
> -c
>
--
Rodney D. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Registered Linux User #96112
ICQ#: AIM#: YAHOO:
18002350 mailman452 mailman42_5
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Ben Franklin - 1759
pgpFSrWnIveJj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
