What's stupid? Software that (correctly) threads messages based on the In-Reply-To and MessageID headers, or software that thinks threads need to be built based on the subject line?
What's, dumb, if you ask me, is software that refuses to show you those headers, or to let you change them. But software that puts a message into the same thread as a post made five years ago, just because the subject line happens to be the same, comes pretty close to it on the stupidity front. (Yes - you have been screwing up the archives) On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 05:08:04PM -0600, Tom C wrote: > Well THAT'S STUPID! One would think the software would be smart enough to > see that the header line had changed and start a new thread. Do you mean > I've been screwing up the archives all these years and know one here has > SCREAMED THEIR HEAD OFF at me? > > Tom C. > > > > > >From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > >Subject: Re: List Question > >Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:16:47 -0400 > > > >Properly formated threads don't depend on the subject line. Properly > >formed threads use the "in reply to" field, in the message header IIRC. > > > >Tom C wrote: > > > >>I, as many others are having problems receiving all the messages fron the > >>list, often not my own. I'm not blaming this on any of the PDML list > >>inner workings. Is is in general aggravating. > >> > >>I am curious though... Sometimes I'll reply to an existing PDML e-mail in > >>order to have the > >>pentax-discuss@pdml.net appear automatically in the To: field. I then > >>erase the body of the message and substitute my own subject line. > >>However, when I look in the archives, I see my sent message embedded in > >>the earlier thread ***even though the subject line has changed***. > >> > >> > >>Tom C. > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >-- > >When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). > > >
