Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
David Gaudine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bob Hilliard writes: > > But most Windows mailers make you read mail on-line, which is an > > abomination. > > Outlook Express requires me to go online to download messages or to upload > replies. It does not require me to be online while reading or composing. > Neither does Eudora, as I recall. What Windows mailers are you referring > to? I stand corrected then. I thought Outlook required you to read on line. (I haven't used Windows since long before Outlook was written.) Most Windows users I am familiar with use Netscape instead of a real mailer, and stay on line to read and reply to messages. Regards, Bob -- _ |_) _ |_Robert D. Hilliard<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Palm City, FL 34990 USA GPG Key ID: 390D6559 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
Bob Hilliard writes: > But most Windows mailers make you read mail on-line, which is an > abomination. Outlook Express requires me to go online to download messages or to upload replies. It does not require me to be online while reading or composing. Neither does Eudora, as I recall. What Windows mailers are you referring to? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
Pigeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I seem to be making a habit of being misunderstood at the moment! > Sure, Linux lets you do anything you want - that's why I like it - it > just seemed that the general philosophy was "online all the time". > That of Windoze seems to be "OK, we'll let you be offline most of the > time, but we'll keep wanting to go online unexpectedly to do something > you probably wouldn't want if we told you what it was". But most Windows mailers make you read mail on-line, which is an abomination. > My puzzlement > was due to Linux apparently having a more resource-hungry philosophy > on this point, in contradiction to the usual situation. Must be the > Unix networking heritage. Before I was able to use a cable modem, I was on a dialup connection. At first, the length of a connection was limited, and my monthly fee covered a limited number of hours. I did my best to prevent installed programs from deciding when I would be online. I did not run ppp or my mailer as a daemon (this usually requires overriding the default setup - usually inserting `exit 0' at the top of the startup scripts in /etc/init.d.). The MTA should be configured to queue all mail, and wait for an explicit `runq' before sending. I included runq and mail downloading scripts in the ip-up.d directory. You are correct - the default setting for most packages assume constant internet access, and need to be adjusted for a dialup user. Regards, Bob -- _ |_) _ |_Robert D. Hilliard<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Palm City, FL 34990 USA GPG Key ID: 390D6559 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
On 05 Nov 2002 07:55:30 -0600, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Pigeon wrote: >> ...of OE which to me is the single most important feature a mail client >> can offer: the ability to automatically dial up, send any outgoing mail, >> receive any incoming mail and immediately hang up. > >Am MUA should not do this. It should just hand the mail to the MTA. > >Joshua Lee writes: >> However, it should be pretty easy to implement a script that would run >> pon, fetch your mail, and run poff to disconnect once successful though. > >Not necessary. Properly configured, your MTA (e.g. exim) will >automatically attempt to deliver the message to your ISP's smarthost as >soon as it receives it from your MUA (e.g. mutt, gnus, etc.). If pppd is >configured for demand dialing (use pppconfig) it will immediately dial up >and the message will be delivered. Then waiting mail will be downloaded and >handed off to the MTA by fetchmail (if installed) and pppd will shut down >after a configurable period of inactivity. > >A rule of thumb for Linux: When you think "there ought to be a way to do >this" there usually is. I seem to be making a habit of being misunderstood at the moment! Sure, Linux lets you do anything you want - that's why I like it - it just seemed that the general philosophy was "online all the time". That of Windoze seems to be "OK, we'll let you be offline most of the time, but we'll keep wanting to go online unexpectedly to do something you probably wouldn't want if we told you what it was". My puzzlement was due to Linux apparently having a more resource-hungry philosophy on this point, in contradiction to the usual situation. Must be the Unix networking heritage. Still, many thanks to the people who posted to this thread. Until Monday I didn't have a Linux-compatible modem so I had ignored all the internet side of Linux. Now I'm setting that up. I'm not gonna ask dumb questions on the list until I've done some more reading, so thanks for the research hints everyone has dropped. Pigeon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
Am Mit, 2002-11-06 um 00.15 schrieb Joshua Lee: > On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 07:55:30AM -0600, John Hasler wrote: > > Joshua Lee writes: > > > However, it should be pretty easy to implement a script that would run > > > pon, fetch your mail, and run poff to disconnect once successful though. > [...] > > soon as it receives it from your MUA (e.g. mutt, gnus, etc.). If pppd is > > configured for demand dialing (use pppconfig) it will immediately dial up > > and the message will be delivered. Then waiting mail will be downloaded and > [...] > > A rule of thumb for Linux: When you think "there ought to be a way to do > > this" there usually is. > > A rule of thumb for Perl that also applies to Linux is "there's more than > one way to do it". :-) Yeah, but in bash, most of those ways earn you the "Useless Use of Cat Award" :) -- Matthias Hentges [www.hentges.net] -> PGP + HTML are welcome ICQ: 97 26 97 4 -> No files, no URLs My OS: Debian Woody: Geek by Nature, Linux by Choice -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 07:55:30AM -0600, John Hasler wrote: > Joshua Lee writes: > > However, it should be pretty easy to implement a script that would run > > pon, fetch your mail, and run poff to disconnect once successful though. [...] > soon as it receives it from your MUA (e.g. mutt, gnus, etc.). If pppd is > configured for demand dialing (use pppconfig) it will immediately dial up > and the message will be delivered. Then waiting mail will be downloaded and [...] > A rule of thumb for Linux: When you think "there ought to be a way to do > this" there usually is. A rule of thumb for Perl that also applies to Linux is "there's more than one way to do it". :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
Hello Richard, On Nov 5, Richard Kimber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > > You mean there are email programs that can't thread? Amazing. I've run | > > kmail, mutt, evolution and sylpheed-claws (this post). All are | > > thread-capable. | | But Sylpheed is not. Yes it is. In Claws, there's View->Thread View. Maybe it's not in the same place, but Sylpheed's home page says it has thread view. -- Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wonka.hampshire.edu/~jason GPG key - 0EFB1DFE All power corrupts, but we need electricity. msg11254/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 15:32:40 -0500 Joshua Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You mean there are email programs that can't thread? Amazing. I've run > > kmail, mutt, evolution and sylpheed-claws (this post). All are > > thread-capable. But Sylpheed is not. - Richard. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
On November 4, 2002 08:49 pm, csj wrote: > You mean there are email programs that can't thread? Amazing. I've run > kmail, mutt, evolution and sylpheed-claws (this post). All are > thread-capable. I was already using kmail, it was actually that I didn't realize email programs could do such a thing. I never subscribed to such a high-volume listserve, so never had a need for it before. The threading button in kmail (woody) is blank (no icon) so I didn't realize it was there. -Levi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 09:49:14AM +0800, csj wrote: > On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 16:56:26 -0500 > Levi Waldron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > And thanks from me. I was previously reading the list archives > > rather than actually subscribing, til I realized that some email > > programs (like kmail) are capable of threading like the archives do! > > You mean there are email programs that can't thread? Amazing. I've run > kmail, mutt, evolution and sylpheed-claws (this post). All are > thread-capable. You already have such a mail program. Run "mail". :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 16:56:26 -0500 Levi Waldron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And thanks from me. I was previously reading the list archives > rather than actually subscribing, til I realized that some email > programs (like kmail) are capable of threading like the archives do! You mean there are email programs that can't thread? Amazing. I've run kmail, mutt, evolution and sylpheed-claws (this post). All are thread-capable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
Hello Rob, On Nov 5, Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | I'm kind of curious now: how common is threading among mail clients now? Well, even my school's web-based email system has threading ... I haven't used other than Sylpheed and mutt in forever, either, though, so I really don't know about other clients. -Jason -- Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wonka.hampshire.edu/~jason GPG key - 0EFB1DFE Work smarter, not harder, and be careful of your speling. msg11173/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
Pigeon wrote: > ...of OE which to me is the single most important feature a mail client > can offer: the ability to automatically dial up, send any outgoing mail, > receive any incoming mail and immediately hang up. Am MUA should not do this. It should just hand the mail to the MTA. Joshua Lee writes: > However, it should be pretty easy to implement a script that would run > pon, fetch your mail, and run poff to disconnect once successful though. Not necessary. Properly configured, your MTA (e.g. exim) will automatically attempt to deliver the message to your ISP's smarthost as soon as it receives it from your MUA (e.g. mutt, gnus, etc.). If pppd is configured for demand dialing (use pppconfig) it will immediately dial up and the message will be delivered. Then waiting mail will be downloaded and handed off to the MTA by fetchmail (if installed) and pppd will shut down after a configurable period of inactivity. A rule of thumb for Linux: When you think "there ought to be a way to do this" there usually is. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 03:55:43PM -, Pigeon wrote: > Thanks from me as well. This stuff is not obvious to those who do not > use a thread-aware mail client. This includes me. I've only just got a I'm kind of curious now: how common is threading among mail clients now? It's been a long time since I used anything aside from kmail or mutt; back in my MS days I used The Bat, which supported threading, IIRC. > the time, which is only OK if you're rich. From what little I know, > Linux seems to work on the same philosohpy, which puzzles me a bit.) I use fetchmail+exim+procmail+mutt, which does this perfectly. I dial up, and run fetchmail to download my mail. Simultaneously, exim's outgoing mail queue is flushed. Works rather neatly for me, even tho Australia doesn't have timed local calls (our Government is working hard to charge us for each breath we take though). -rob msg11144/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
The information below should be sent as a separate email to users when they sign up. Full marks for clarity. Matt > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bob@;proulx.com] > Sent: Monday, 4 November 2002 5:01 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network) > > > Michael Naumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-03 16:19:09 +0100]: > > 03.11.2002 04:29:40, Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [Please start a new thread for a new question, it makes it much > > > easier for people to follow the list and makes it more > likely that > > > you'll get an answer.] > > > > I'm not sure I understand what you want to say with this. Didn't I > > start a new thread.? Or was there already an equal named > thread ? I'm > > quiet new to this list, so maybe I didn't get it. > > This is not an uncommon confusion. Can I have your ear for a > moment? Please let me explain. > > You message can be reviewed in the archive: > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/debian-user-200210/ms > g06497.html > > There you can see that you generated that message as a reply. > > In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > References: > <20021031024723.HJCG14348.tomts22-srv.bellnexxia.net@there> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > You replied to a message "Re: blank LCD monitor". Your > message referenced both it and the previous message in that > thread. In the archive the references are also links. If > you click there you will go to the referenced message. But > that is not all that being threaded does for you. > > Let's look at it from the threaded view. > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/debian-user-200210/th > rd13.html#06491 > > You message is threaded by virtue of being a reply in the > thread of discussion about "blank LCD monitor". This is in > the list archive. But most mailers will show it the same way. > Your message will be displayed as being part of the thread > and the thread will be manipulated in one action. When I > kill a thread in a mail reader it kills the entire thread, > your message as well, all at one time. > > A little confusing in the archive, but not in mailers, is > that the archive splits over months and so the next month > contains Rob's reply and there is no archive threading across > months. But mailers will display it since all of the > messages are in a mailbox until you delete them. Normally in > a mail reader the entire thread would be shown. > > Therefore you did not start a new thread. You replied to a > previous one and only changed the subject. Changing the > subject does not start a new thread. It just changes the > subject. Threads are maintained by the "References:" headers. > > If you want to start a new thread then you need to either 1) > start a new message and send it to the list, which is the > preferred method. Or 2) be sure to change the subject, delete > the In-Reply-To: header, delete the References: header. The > first option certainly seems easier then doing the second option. > > In general what you did by replying to an existing thread is > called "thread stealing". That is considered a rudeness. It > is like barging into conversation between other people in the > middle, interrupting them, and then shooting off in a > completely different direction. Right there in the middle of > a discussion is this other person trying to start something > up! How rude! You can see how that could be viewed that way. > > Is it always rude to thread steal by changing the subject? > No, and many times changing the subject is the right thing to > do. To be specific just changing the subject is not the same > as thread stealing. When thread drift occurs this is > frequently appropriate. A discussion of one thing mutates > into a discussion of something else but perhaps not of > interest to the original thread. Therefore the author will > change the subject to show this. This is not really thread > stealing because the flow was directly connected to the > original thread. It is just the drift of discussion. > > A real example from not too long ago was a thread titled > "Make Debian better" which drifted into a discussion about > broken home and end keys. csj correctly kept the same thread > but politely changed the subject to "Home and end keys (was > Re: Make Debian better)" so that we reading the discussion > could see exactly how the discussion flowed. A good > illustration of whe
Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 03:55:43PM -, Pigeon wrote: > of OE which to me is the single most important feature a mail client can > offer: the ability to automatically dial up, send any outgoing mail, > receive any incoming mail and immediately hang up. This MINIMISES time > spent CLOCKING UP PHONE CHARGES. Agent seems to assume you're online all > the time, which is only OK if you're rich. From what little I know, > Linux seems to work on the same philosohpy, which puzzles me a bit.) It could be because in the US, local phone is usually flat-rate. Also, TCP/IP wasn't intended for phone lines, it's oriented towards an always-on connection. However, it should be pretty easy to implement a script that would run pon, fetch your mail, and run poff to disconnect once successful though. Or I think you can tell pppd to disconnect after a period of inactivity. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
On November 4, 2002 10:55 am, Pigeon wrote: > Thanks from me as well. This stuff is not obvious to those who do not > use a thread-aware mail client. This includes me. I've only just got a And thanks from me. I was previously reading the list archives rather than actually subscribing, til I realized that some email programs (like kmail) are capable of threading like the archives do! With threading the debian-user volume doesn't seem so overwhelming, so I'm a subscriber now and my emails will thread properly. -Levi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 04 November 2002 3:55 pm, Pigeon wrote: > (I did have a brief look at Forte Agent but it seems to lack the feature > of OE which to me is the single most important feature a mail client can > offer: the ability to automatically dial up, send any outgoing mail, > receive any incoming mail and immediately hang up. I used Forte Agent (admittedly the paid for version) on Windoze before switching to linux because it did precisely what you are asking for. More importantly, it also did the same for usenet newsgroups at the same time and with the same interface (something I am still hoping for in kmail). I did use it under wine when I first switched to linux although not with dialup - I used linux demand dialing in ppp - which just made the call whenever I tried to access the internet. The ppp-up scripts ran fetchmail which retrieved all my mail and placed it (via exim) in mailboxes. I also ran ipopd so that agent could do a call on it and retrieve the mail to store in its local file format. Timeouts on the ppp stuff brought the link down when there was no more mail to read (or I had stopped surfing the web!). I think (its been a while) I used leafnode to provide an on demand newsgroup access service - with the leafnodes newsgroup retriever also kicked off by the ppp-up scripts. I then switched to kmail - now I have a cable modem to ppp doesn't come into it, although I am now using fetchmail as a demon to retrieve e-mail from my isp every 15 minutes. To read use-net newsgroups I use mailman which gates the news into a local mailing list which I subscribe to. - -- Alan Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9xs5duFHxcV2FFoIRAggxAJ9djWUEhH3JhmAp4dPfQsCK06JQ4QCcCShR H8yfaJMhKbEANUHlp5FO7FQ= =Se6G -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
- Original Message - From: Wayne Topa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network) > Bob Proulx([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said: > > Michael Naumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-03 16:19:09 +0100]: > > > 03.11.2002 04:29:40, Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > [Please start a new thread for a new question, it makes it much easier > > > > for people to follow the list and makes it more likely that you'll get > > > > an answer.] > > > > > > I'm not sure I understand what you want to say with this. > > > Didn't I start a new thread.? Or was there already an equal named thread ? > > > I'm quiet new to this list, so maybe I didn't get it. > > > > This is not an uncommon confusion. Can I have your ear for a moment? > > Please let me explain. > > > > Bob > > Very well done! A gentlemanly reply and a great one at that!! > > A must read for any newbies to the list. > > Wayne > -- > Windows is a multi-tasking OS: Do one task, reboot, do another task, reboot... > ___ > Thanks from me as well. This stuff is not obvious to those who do not use a thread-aware mail client. This includes me. I've only just got a hardware modem and haven't set up Linux for Internet yet. Previously I was using a GSM modem from Windoze due to the lack of Linux drivers, which meant Outlook Express as a mail client. (I did have a brief look at Forte Agent but it seems to lack the feature of OE which to me is the single most important feature a mail client can offer: the ability to automatically dial up, send any outgoing mail, receive any incoming mail and immediately hang up. This MINIMISES time spent CLOCKING UP PHONE CHARGES. Agent seems to assume you're online all the time, which is only OK if you're rich. From what little I know, Linux seems to work on the same philosohpy, which puzzles me a bit.) In particular the bit about needing to change the References field to start a new thread is useful. In OE one is unaware of the existence of such things without doing some unusual messing about, and the messing about still does not make you aware of their significance. Pigeon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
Bob Proulx([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said: > Michael Naumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-03 16:19:09 +0100]: > > 03.11.2002 04:29:40, Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [Please start a new thread for a new question, it makes it much easier > > > for people to follow the list and makes it more likely that you'll get > > > an answer.] > > > > I'm not sure I understand what you want to say with this. > > Didn't I start a new thread.? Or was there already an equal named thread ? > > I'm quiet new to this list, so maybe I didn't get it. > > This is not an uncommon confusion. Can I have your ear for a moment? > Please let me explain. > Bob Very well done! A gentlemanly reply and a great one at that!! A must read for any newbies to the list. Wayne -- Windows is a multi-tasking OS: Do one task, reboot, do another task, reboot... ___ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
03.11.2002 18:59:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) wrote: > Michael Naumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-03 16:19:09 +0100]: > > 03.11.2002 04:29:40, Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [Please start a new thread for a new question, it makes it much easier > > > for people to follow the list and makes it more likely that you'll get > > > an answer.] > > > > I'm not sure I understand what you want to say with this. > > Didn't I start a new thread.? Or was there already an equal named thread ? > > I'm quiet new to this list, so maybe I didn't get it. > > This is not an uncommon confusion. Can I have your ear for a moment? Sure you can. > Please let me explain. > > You message can be reviewed in the archive: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/debian-user-200210/msg06497.html > > There you can see that you generated that message as a reply. > > In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > References: <20021031024723.HJCG14348.tomts22-srv.bellnexxia.net@there> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > You replied to a message "Re: blank LCD monitor". Your message > referenced both it and the previous message in that thread. In the > archive the references are also links. If you click there you will go > to the referenced message. But that is not all that being threaded > does for you. Oh, I see. This was not done on purpose. I just picked a random message to have the 'TO:' - Field filled. I was not aware of the confusion that can arise. Shrugg..., how many times in the past did I do the same mistake ... ? > > Let's look at it from the threaded view. > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/debian-user-200210/thrd13.html#06491 > > You message is threaded by virtue of being a reply in the thread of > discussion about "blank LCD monitor". This is in the list archive. > But most mailers will show it the same way. Your message will be > displayed as being part of the thread and the thread will be > manipulated in one action. When I kill a thread in a mail reader it > kills the entire thread, your message as well, all at one time. So I probably unintentionally kicked myself in the ass. > > A little confusing in the archive, but not in mailers, is that the > archive splits over months and so the next month contains Rob's reply > and there is no archive threading across months. But mailers will > display it since all of the messages are in a mailbox until you delete > them. Normally in a mail reader the entire thread would be shown. > > Therefore you did not start a new thread. You replied to a previous > one and only changed the subject. Changing the subject does not start > a new thread. It just changes the subject. Threads are maintained by > the "References:" headers. Now I know. I'll take care of this in the future. > > If you want to start a new thread then you need to either 1) start a > new message and send it to the list, which is the preferred method. > Or 2) be sure to change the subject, delete the In-Reply-To: header, > delete the References: header. The first option certainly seems > easier then doing the second option. I think, I'll stick to method 1) > > In general what you did by replying to an existing thread is called > "thread stealing". That is considered a rudeness. It is like barging > into conversation between other people in the middle, interrupting > them, and then shooting off in a completely different direction. > Right there in the middle of a discussion is this other person trying > to start something up! How rude! You can see how that could be > viewed that way. Please everybody, take my apologies. > > Is it always rude to thread steal by changing the subject? No, and > many times changing the subject is the right thing to do. To be > specific just changing the subject is not the same as thread stealing. > When thread drift occurs this is frequently appropriate. A discussion > of one thing mutates into a discussion of something else but perhaps > not of interest to the original thread. Therefore the author will > change the subject to show this. This is not really thread stealing > because the flow was directly connected to the original thread. It is > just the drift of discussion. > > A real example from not too long ago was a thread titled "Make Debian > better" which drifted into a discussion about broken home and end > keys. csj correctly kept the same thread but politely changed the > subject to "Home and end keys (was Re: Make Debian better)" so that we > reading the discussion could see exactly how the discussion flowed. A > good illustration of when changing the subject was quite appropriate. > > I myself in this message am doing this. Since this message itself has > nothing to do with installing debian but only with a subtopic I have > changed the subject line. But it flowed out of the original thread of > discussion and I expect it to be threaded with it. But to give > readers a topic I have titled the subject with wh
Thread Stealing (was: Installing debian via network)
Michael Naumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-11-03 16:19:09 +0100]: > 03.11.2002 04:29:40, Rob Weir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [Please start a new thread for a new question, it makes it much easier > > for people to follow the list and makes it more likely that you'll get > > an answer.] > > I'm not sure I understand what you want to say with this. > Didn't I start a new thread.? Or was there already an equal named thread ? > I'm quiet new to this list, so maybe I didn't get it. This is not an uncommon confusion. Can I have your ear for a moment? Please let me explain. You message can be reviewed in the archive: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/debian-user-200210/msg06497.html There you can see that you generated that message as a reply. In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <20021031024723.HJCG14348.tomts22-srv.bellnexxia.net@there> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You replied to a message "Re: blank LCD monitor". Your message referenced both it and the previous message in that thread. In the archive the references are also links. If you click there you will go to the referenced message. But that is not all that being threaded does for you. Let's look at it from the threaded view. http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/debian-user-200210/thrd13.html#06491 You message is threaded by virtue of being a reply in the thread of discussion about "blank LCD monitor". This is in the list archive. But most mailers will show it the same way. Your message will be displayed as being part of the thread and the thread will be manipulated in one action. When I kill a thread in a mail reader it kills the entire thread, your message as well, all at one time. A little confusing in the archive, but not in mailers, is that the archive splits over months and so the next month contains Rob's reply and there is no archive threading across months. But mailers will display it since all of the messages are in a mailbox until you delete them. Normally in a mail reader the entire thread would be shown. Therefore you did not start a new thread. You replied to a previous one and only changed the subject. Changing the subject does not start a new thread. It just changes the subject. Threads are maintained by the "References:" headers. If you want to start a new thread then you need to either 1) start a new message and send it to the list, which is the preferred method. Or 2) be sure to change the subject, delete the In-Reply-To: header, delete the References: header. The first option certainly seems easier then doing the second option. In general what you did by replying to an existing thread is called "thread stealing". That is considered a rudeness. It is like barging into conversation between other people in the middle, interrupting them, and then shooting off in a completely different direction. Right there in the middle of a discussion is this other person trying to start something up! How rude! You can see how that could be viewed that way. Is it always rude to thread steal by changing the subject? No, and many times changing the subject is the right thing to do. To be specific just changing the subject is not the same as thread stealing. When thread drift occurs this is frequently appropriate. A discussion of one thing mutates into a discussion of something else but perhaps not of interest to the original thread. Therefore the author will change the subject to show this. This is not really thread stealing because the flow was directly connected to the original thread. It is just the drift of discussion. A real example from not too long ago was a thread titled "Make Debian better" which drifted into a discussion about broken home and end keys. csj correctly kept the same thread but politely changed the subject to "Home and end keys (was Re: Make Debian better)" so that we reading the discussion could see exactly how the discussion flowed. A good illustration of when changing the subject was quite appropriate. I myself in this message am doing this. Since this message itself has nothing to do with installing debian but only with a subtopic I have changed the subject line. But it flowed out of the original thread of discussion and I expect it to be threaded with it. But to give readers a topic I have titled the subject with what I thought was most appropriate. People not interested will skip it. Or perhaps people that are interested will read it when they would not have read the previous part of the thread of discussion. There is actually quite a bit of order to the seeming chaos of a usenet discussion. Hope this helps. Bob msg10780/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
