On 08/26/2008 11:34:58 AM, John Summerfield wrote: > Douglas Wooster wrote: > > <2 cents> > > Also, certain supposedly "modern" mail programs make threading awkward to > > :-) Name names, I need something to scoff at:-) It might be someone can > explain to you how it works, I've see that happen before,
Ummm, for ... economic ... reasons, I better claim the fifth. :) > > use, so the goal with those is quote the whole thing so that the fewest > > number of posts have to be kept, in order to have a copy of (or be able to > > find) the whole thread. On the other hand, if you receive a list in > > "digest" mode, that technique can be an abomination. It'd be cool if list > > servers gave, in addition to the current options of "send as digest" and > > "send individual posts", something like "send as threads". > > When should the server determine the thread's ended? or do you want the > digest threaded? Threading the digest is interesting alternative. I wasn't expecting it to hold everything until the entire thread had been discussed. I was thinking more like "send as threads" being every time it forwards a post, attach all the preceeding posts of the thread to the new post (at top or bottom, as configured). Or collect posts, per-thread for some relatively short period of time to reduce the number of mailings (maybe an hour??). > ... and I wonder whether they break threads when > someone replies from a thread and remembers to set the subject properly. Not sure -- I do do that on some lists, but since digests inherently don't thread, I can't tell. > Is gmame a suitable alternative? What's "gmame"? Douglas ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
