On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 20:15:51 +1930, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
[...]
> It's worth pointing out that RFC-standard threading is controlled by the
> In-Reply-To header, not by the Subject, i.e. conforming mail clients pay
> *no attention* to the Subject header when displaying threads. People w
On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 20:38 +, Beartooth wrote:
> I also want to ask a question I haven't seen yet in this thread.
> Suppose I happen on a new fact that sends *me* off on a tangent --
> something I've long meant to ask about, but not really relevant to the
> thread. (Here, for instan
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Tim wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 20:38 +, Beartooth wrote:
>> I also want to ask a question I haven't seen yet in this thread.
>> Suppose I happen on a new fact that sends *me* off on a tangent --
>> something I've long meant to ask about, but not rea
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Although I doubt there are hard and fast rules about this, it can be
> acceptable to simply reply, and edit the Subject e.g.:
>
> Subject: Concerning seafood (Was: the mortality of crabs)
That's OK if the message is a reply and the discussion deviated from the
origina
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>> Although I doubt there are hard and fast rules about this, it can be
>> acceptable to simply reply, and edit the Subject e.g.:
>>
>> Subject: Concerning seafood (Was: the mortality of crabs)
>
> That's OK if the me
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:26:39 +1930, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Kofler
> wrote:
>> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
[...]
>>> Subject: Concerning seafood (Was: the mortality of crabs)
>>
>> That's OK if the message is a reply and the discussion deviated fr
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Beartooth wrote:
>What I then tried to ask for was some trivially easy method -- a
> pons asinorum, if you like -- to urge new posters to get and use. (They
> might, of course, have vast subject expertise; consider a list devoted to
> the history of Finnish
