Re: Subjects, Topics and Threading

[Dale H. Cook]

At 06:40 PM 9/14/2016, KnoppixLiveKiller wrote:

>Is it really that hard to bottom post?

With that things have gotten really ridiculous, so goodbye for good.

Dale H. Cook, Contract IT Administrator, Roanoke/Lynchburg, VA
http://plymouthcolony.net/starcityeng/index.html 

Re: Subjects, Topics and Threading

[jim stephens]

yes it is.  The cursor is at the top of the box with the emails in most 
readers I've seen, and unless I want to leave a posting long and enter 
comments thru the body, sometimes top posting works.


On 9/14/2016 3:40 PM, KnoppixLiveKiller wrote:


Is it really that hard to bottom post? 

Re: Subjects, Topics and Threading

[KnoppixLiveKiller]

On 09/14/2016 05:30 PM, j...@cimmeri.com wrote:



On 9/14/2016 4:58 PM, Dale H. Cook wrote:

At 05:42 PM 9/14/2016, Steven M Jones wrote:


How do you justify making everybody conform to your preferred behavior?
I don't, but the behavior and archiving of this list is bound by the 
software that it runs under.


Dale H. Cook, Contract IT Administrator, Roanoke/Lynchburg, VA
http://plymouthcolony.net/starcityeng/index.html


I'm the one who last changed the subject of the aforemetioned thread 
(which is now not this thread).  It was my first time renaming a 
thread, and I'm confused as to what I did wrong.


How is sending a new email any different than replying / changing 
subject line?


Thanks,
  J.




Is it really that hard to bottom post?

--
*Mike's ​ Honda ATC 3wheeler​ Shop​ for LIFE!!!*
**Have a blessed day!**

Re: Subjects, Topics and Threading

[Ian S. King]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Dale H. Cook  wrote:

> At 06:30 PM 9/14/2016, J. wrote:
>
> >How is sending a new email any different than replying / changing subject
> line?
>
> The message headers contain data that identify which thread a message is
> part of. Subscribers normally do not see that data because very few people
> have a reason to look at the full headers of a message. Replying to an
> existing thread without changing the subject maintains that data. Replying
> to an existing thread but changing the subject line also maintains that
> data, which identifies the reply as part of the original thread. In both
> cases the message appears in the list archives as part of the original
> thread.
>
> Starting a new thread with a new subject assigns new data identifying the
> new thread. It appears in the list archives as part of a new thread,
> independent from the original thread. That is part of the way in which
> mailing list software, in general, works.
>
> Oh boy, oh boy!  We haven't had a 'mailing-list-behavior' thread in, oh,
days!  I was getting bored with all the conversation about vintage hardware
and software - it was so, well, meaningful.  We haven't had a good
food-fight here in... days!

-- 
Ian S. King, MSIS, MSCS, Ph.D. Candidate
The Information School 
Dissertation: "Why the Conversation Mattered: Constructing a Sociotechnical
Narrative Through a Design Lens

Archivist, Voices From the Rwanda Tribunal 
Value Sensitive Design Research Lab 

University of Washington

There is an old Vulcan saying: "Only Nixon could go to China."

Re: Subjects, Topics and Threading

[Dale H. Cook]

At 06:30 PM 9/14/2016, J. wrote:

>How is sending a new email any different than replying / changing subject line?

The message headers contain data that identify which thread a message is part 
of. Subscribers normally do not see that data because very few people have a 
reason to look at the full headers of a message. Replying to an existing thread 
without changing the subject maintains that data. Replying to an existing 
thread but changing the subject line also maintains that data, which identifies 
the reply as part of the original thread. In both cases the message appears in 
the list archives as part of the original thread.

Starting a new thread with a new subject assigns new data identifying the new 
thread. It appears in the list archives as part of a new thread, independent 
from the original thread. That is part of the way in which mailing list 
software, in general, works.

Dale H. Cook, Contract IT Administrator, Roanoke/Lynchburg, VA
http://plymouthcolony.net/starcityeng/index.html 

Re: Subjects, Topics and Threading

[jim stephens]

On 9/14/2016 3:30 PM, j...@cimmeri.com wrote:



On 9/14/2016 4:58 PM, Dale H. Cook wrote:

At 05:42 PM 9/14/2016, Steven M Jones wrote:


How do you justify making everybody conform to your preferred behavior?
I don't, but the behavior and archiving of this list is bound by the 
software that it runs under.


Dale H. Cook, Contract IT Administrator, Roanoke/Lynchburg, VA
http://plymouthcolony.net/starcityeng/index.html


I'm the one who last changed the subject of the aforemetioned thread 
(which is now not this thread).  It was my first time renaming a 
thread, and I'm confused as to what I did wrong.


How is sending a new email any different than replying / changing 
subject line?


Thanks,
  J
Leaving the original subject or a contraction of it is good, unless you 
start a totally new topic, and copy some bit of the original. Most 
readers will thread the whole thing together anyway from info in the 
email headers, so there is no harm in adding a hint as to where the 
thread branches.


Lotus could do hierarchical discussion threads, but this is had no way 
to surface branches and yet retain the origin.


Thanks
Jim

Re: Subjects, Topics and Threading

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

How is sending a new email any different than replying / changing subject 
line?


A brand-new (not reply) message does not carry the References: header 
chain from the previous thread.  For threading-aware MUAs, this makes sure 
the new conversation doesn't get buried in the old thread.  Or possibly 
even ignored, as some MUAs can kill/ignore portions of threads based on 
specific message-ids in the References header.


--lyndon

Re: Subjects, Topics and Threading

[j...@cimmeri.com]

On 9/14/2016 4:58 PM, Dale H. Cook wrote:

At 05:42 PM 9/14/2016, Steven M Jones wrote:


How do you justify making everybody conform to your preferred behavior?

I don't, but the behavior and archiving of this list is bound by the software 
that it runs under.

Dale H. Cook, Contract IT Administrator, Roanoke/Lynchburg, VA
http://plymouthcolony.net/starcityeng/index.html


I'm the one who last changed the subject of the aforemetioned thread (which is 
now not this thread).  It was my first time renaming a thread, and I'm confused 
as to what I did wrong.

How is sending a new email any different than replying / changing subject line?

Thanks,
  J.

Re: Subjects, Topics and Threading

[Dale H. Cook]

At 05:42 PM 9/14/2016, Steven M Jones wrote:

>How do you justify making everybody conform to your preferred behavior?

I don't, but the behavior and archiving of this list is bound by the software 
that it runs under.

Dale H. Cook, Contract IT Administrator, Roanoke/Lynchburg, VA
http://plymouthcolony.net/starcityeng/index.html 

Re: Subjects, Topics and Threading

[Al Kossow]

On 9/14/16 2:42 PM, Steven M Jones wrote:
> On 09/14/16 09:52, Dale H. Cook wrote:
>>
>> Please do not change the subject line in a thread.
> And what's so horrible about that?

nothing

It has taken twenty years to get to the point on cclk where the subject
line changes at all.

alt.folklore.computers is the extreme example of thread wander.
I stop reading a thread after about the fifth post there.

I know.. "You still read a.f.c ?"