Re: Arranging icons on desktop

[Braden McDaniel]

On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 11:04 +0100, Bill Crawford wrote:
> On Monday 15 September 2008 23:02:47 Braden McDaniel wrote:
> 
> > Actually, it's for compatibility with Mozilla--the behavior of which is
> > based on this broken-by-design document:
> >
> >http://www.jwz.org/doc/threading.html
> 
> If you read it carefully, it explains exactly what and WHY the original 
> mozilla 
> (we're talking about Netscape version 3) used to do to thread messages. The 
> newer mozilla *stopped* doing it that way, hence Jamie's rant. Please could 
> you 
> explain why you consider this "broken" ...?

Considering the Subject at all is broken.  With any significant volume
of mail you invariably wind up with completely unrelated messages that
happen, by coincidence, to have identical subjects.  Treating such
messages as part of the same thread is not, IMO, acceptable behavior.

Whatever its deviations from this algorithm, Thunderbird is still broken
in this respect in its default configuration.  Fortunately there are
some (relatively well hidden) options you can change to correct its
behavior.

-- 
Braden McDaniel   e-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jabber: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines

Re: Arranging icons on desktop

[Bill Crawford]

On Monday 15 September 2008 23:02:47 Braden McDaniel wrote:

> Actually, it's for compatibility with Mozilla--the behavior of which is
> based on this broken-by-design document:
>
>http://www.jwz.org/doc/threading.html

If you read it carefully, it explains exactly what and WHY the original mozilla 
(we're talking about Netscape version 3) used to do to thread messages. The 
newer mozilla *stopped* doing it that way, hence Jamie's rant. Please could you 
explain why you consider this "broken" ...?

> I think Outlook may be even more broken than this; for the longest time
> it didn't even look at References and In-Reply-To.

Outlook relies almost completely on the Subject. Most people I see here using 
outlook don't appear to be doing any kind of threading anyway, just newest at 
the top.

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines

Re: Arranging icons on desktop

[Aaron Konstam]

On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 18:21 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 15:27 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 11:01 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 10:11 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> > > > How in evolution to you tell the program to thread by In-Reply-To
> > > > header and not by subject?
> > > 
> > > Evo *always* threads by In-Reply-To where present and AFAIK this cannot
> > > be turned off. It only falls back to thread-by-subject when there's no
> > > In-Reply-To header.
> > > 
> > > > And if you thread by In-Reply-To hader threading how
> > > > can you tell when the thread ends (since subject line can change)?
> > > 
> > > Isn't that the whole point? If the In-Reply-To header indicates the
> > > message is part of a thread, then it *is* part of the thread, no matter
> > > what the Subject says. People changing the topic of the message (*not*
> > > the Subject, which is irrelevant in this scenario) are hijacking the
> > > thread.
> > > 
> > > poc
> > > 
> > That is not the answer to my question. The answer is that evolution
> > places in front of the subject line to delineate the beginning and end
> > of the thread,
> 
> This last sentence doesn't parse. What are you trying to say?
> 
> poc
> 
I was trying to answer the question (which I screwed up by leaving out
one or two words) of how the end of a thread is indicated in evolution.
Tim answers this in the next message.
--
===
Eeny, Meeny, Jelly Beanie, the spirits are about to speak! -- Bullwinkle
Moose
===
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines

Re: Arranging icons on desktop

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 15:27 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 11:01 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 10:11 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> > > How in evolution to you tell the program to thread by In-Reply-To
> > > header and not by subject?
> > 
> > Evo *always* threads by In-Reply-To where present and AFAIK this cannot
> > be turned off. It only falls back to thread-by-subject when there's no
> > In-Reply-To header.
> > 
> > > And if you thread by In-Reply-To hader threading how
> > > can you tell when the thread ends (since subject line can change)?
> > 
> > Isn't that the whole point? If the In-Reply-To header indicates the
> > message is part of a thread, then it *is* part of the thread, no matter
> > what the Subject says. People changing the topic of the message (*not*
> > the Subject, which is irrelevant in this scenario) are hijacking the
> > thread.
> > 
> > poc
> > 
> That is not the answer to my question. The answer is that evolution
> places in front of the subject line to delineate the beginning and end
> of the thread,

This last sentence doesn't parse. What are you trying to say?

poc

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines

Re: Arranging icons on desktop

[Aaron Konstam]

On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 11:01 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 10:11 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> > How in evolution to you tell the program to thread by In-Reply-To
> > header and not by subject?
> 
> Evo *always* threads by In-Reply-To where present and AFAIK this cannot
> be turned off. It only falls back to thread-by-subject when there's no
> In-Reply-To header.
> 
> > And if you thread by In-Reply-To hader threading how
> > can you tell when the thread ends (since subject line can change)?
> 
> Isn't that the whole point? If the In-Reply-To header indicates the
> message is part of a thread, then it *is* part of the thread, no matter
> what the Subject says. People changing the topic of the message (*not*
> the Subject, which is irrelevant in this scenario) are hijacking the
> thread.
> 
> poc
> 
That is not the answer to my question. The answer is that evolution
places in front of the subject line to delineate the beginning and end
of the thread,
--
===
"An open mind has but one disadvantage: it collects dirt." -- a saying
at RPI
===
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines

Re: Arranging icons on desktop

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 10:11 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> How in evolution to you tell the program to thread by In-Reply-To
> header and not by subject?

Evo *always* threads by In-Reply-To where present and AFAIK this cannot
be turned off. It only falls back to thread-by-subject when there's no
In-Reply-To header.

> And if you thread by In-Reply-To hader threading how
> can you tell when the thread ends (since subject line can change)?

Isn't that the whole point? If the In-Reply-To header indicates the
message is part of a thread, then it *is* part of the thread, no matter
what the Subject says. People changing the topic of the message (*not*
the Subject, which is irrelevant in this scenario) are hijacking the
thread.

poc

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines

Re: Arranging icons on desktop

[Aaron Konstam]

On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 16:58 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 15:32 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 10:09 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 03:47 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2008-09-14 at 22:26 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > > > Please stop hijacking threads. When you have a new topic, do *not*
> > > > > introduce it by replying to an existing message, even if you change 
> > > > > the
> > > > > Subject line. This completely screws up message threading. This is the
> > > > > second time you've done it in the space of a few hours.
> > > > > 
> > > > > See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
> > > > > 
> > > > > poc
> > > > > 
> > > > People keep saing this but I don't understand it. This "highjacking" did
> > > > not mess up my message threading, Why would the mess up happen?
> > > 
> > > If it's not messing it up, you're using a broken mail client which
> > > doesn't understand standard threading (see Tim's reply). I see you use
> > > Yahoo. Enough said.
> > > 
> > > poc
> > > 
> > No in evolution the terminology is different. I personally have not use
> > for threads which contain mail with different subject lines. But to each
> > his own.
> > 
> > Actually now that I think about it, I am not sure that evolution
> > supports threads of the type Tim describes.
> 
> It does. Evo is my preferred client and threading works as it's supposed
> to (i.e. using the In-Reply-To header). However there is also a
> preference option to allow it to fall back to subject-based threading
> when the standard method fails (look under the Preferences->Mail
> Preferences->General tab). This is mainly for compatibility with
> Outlook, which is broken in this regard.
> 
> poc
> 
Then we have a problem. I don't have the fall back to subject --- option
checked. But in the recent complaint about thread highjacking a thread I
did not see the hijacking in my mail list. So there is something
missing in the explanation given for the highjacking complaint.

How in evolution to you tell the program to thread by In-Reply-To header
and not by subject? And if you thread by In-Reply-To hader threading how
can you tell when the thread ends (since subject line can change)?
--
===
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." -- The Wizard Of Oz
===
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines

Re: Arranging icons on desktop

[Carroll Grigsby]

On Tuesday 16 September 2008 07:08:21 am Eric wrote:
> At 12:16 AM 9/16/2008, Tim wrote:
> >Such as replying to someone's
> >message instead of starting a *new* thread for a "new" message (thread
> >hijacking).  Or, not doing a proper reply when you reply to someone's
> >message, like replying to someone else's message and responding to a
> >prior quote, or starting a new message and cutting and pasting between
> >them, or using a client that destroys the in-reply-to and references
> >headers (breaking a thread).
>
> <
>
> Just out of curiosity, isn't taking a thread off in a direction
> totally unrelated to its Subject: line also considered a form of
> thread hijacking?
>
> Don't you guys also object to that??
>
> This thread hasn't had anything remotely to do with "Arranging icons
> on a desktop" since about the third post.  Yet, no one seems to care,
> and no one has changed the Subject: to match what is being discussed.

To be accurate, this thread originated with a posting entitled "'indirect 
routing' through Squid and Privoxy" by Frank Cox which you hijacked with a 
question "Lost toolbar in KDE, how do I get it back?", and which you 
subsequently re-hijacked with "Arranging icons on a desktop".

Alas, no one has yet given Frank any help. Not that I could -- my knowledge of 
squid is pretty much restricted to enjoying calamari in various Italian 
restaurants.

-- cmg

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines

Re: Arranging icons on desktop

[Frank Murphy]

On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 03:47 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> > 
> People keep saing this but I don't understand it. This "highjacking" did
> not mess up my message threading, Why would the mess up happen?
> --

Possible as you do not use an email mua.

Frank

-- 
gpg id EB547226 Revoked Forgot Password :(
aMSN: Frankly3D
http://www.frankly3d.com

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines

Re: Arranging icons on desktop

[Aaron Konstam]

On Sun, 2008-09-14 at 22:26 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Please stop hijacking threads. When you have a new topic, do *not*
> introduce it by replying to an existing message, even if you change the
> Subject line. This completely screws up message threading. This is the
> second time you've done it in the space of a few hours.
> 
> See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
> 
> poc
> 
People keep saing this but I don't understand it. This "highjacking" did
not mess up my message threading, Why would the mess up happen?
--
===
All the passions make us commit faults; love makes us commit the most
ridiculous ones. -- La Rochefoucauld
===
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines