> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Stassen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> This tells the recipient's email client that your message is
> a reply, not a new message, despite your efforts to change the subject and
> recipients. Many email clients use that header to decide which thread a
me
On Wednesday 06 October 2004 02:10 pm, Scott Hamm wrote:
> Like I said before it "seems" to group by "threads". Therefore, it is
> close enough.
Right! thats why Microsoft thrives. Because as long as it appears to work, its
all good.. :)
Jeff
pgpAXe4d5h6QD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hey folks.
Apparently I need to say it again: this discussion is off-topic for this
mailing list. Please either let it die or take the discussion off-list.
Thanks.
Jim Winstead
MySQL Inc.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://li
Like I said before it "seems" to group by "threads". Therefore, it is close
enough.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Satterwhite [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 3:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: update MySQL
-BEGIN PGP SIGN
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 05 October 2004 14:39, Scott Hamm wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> If you sort it by conversation topic, then it will seem to group by
> "threads".
> I'm running Outlook 2000.
Not the same thing. Threading uses the "In-reply-to" header. Messages wi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 05 October 2004 14:23, David Brodbeck wrote:
> Well, that's nice...
>
> I just don't see what difference it makes. As far as I can see, the
> outcome is identical either way...
If the recipients email program threads messages, it makes a b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 05 October 2004 15:18, Ed Lazor wrote:
> Also, back to my original question, what are you seeing that denotes the
> difference between whether I reply or create a new message when starting a
> new topic? After all, I took care of changing
> Ed,
>
> When you *reply* to a message, most mail clients (including yours) add a
> header
> like this:
>
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> That stuff in between the < and > is the message-id of the replied-to
> message.
>
> This tells the recipient's email client that your message is
Ed Lazor wrote:
-Original Message-
Actually its proper email etticate.. look it up if you don't believe me..
That sounds like a copout. Could present formal references to back this up?
I'm trying to substantiate your claims, but a Google search failed to bring
up anything relevant when s
Outlook 2003 here and its working just like Scott's (Converation, Subject,
etc.).
> -Original Message-
> If you sort it by conversation topic, then it will seem to group by
> "threads".
> I'm running Outlook 2000.
>
> Cause your doesnt support threads.. Outlook was the only one I k
> -Original Message-
> Actually its proper email etticate.. look it up if you don't believe me..
That sounds like a copout. Could present formal references to back this up?
I'm trying to substantiate your claims, but a Google search failed to bring
up anything relevant when searching wit
Hi.
This discussion is very off-topic for this list. Please take the
discussion of how to use your email client off-list.
Thanks.
Jim Winstead
MySQL Inc.
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday 05 October 2004 02:39 pm, Scott Hamm wrote:
> If you sort it by conversation topic, then it will seem to group by
> "threads".
> I'm running Outlook 2000.
Seem.. Thats the key word.. Its not true threading support..
These are not there for looks..
References:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I
Jeff,
If you sort it by conversation topic, then it will seem to group by
"threads".
I'm running Outlook 2000.
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Smelser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 3:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: up
On Tuesday 05 October 2004 02:23 pm, David Brodbeck wrote:
>
> Well, that's nice...
Hmm
> I just don't see what difference it makes. As far as I can see, the
> outcome is identical either way...
Cause your doesnt support threads.. Outlook was the only one I knew off that
did not.
Jeff
pgp1r
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Smelser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tuesday 05 October 2004 01:56 pm, David Brodbeck wrote:
>
> > Saves having to retype the list address, or look it up. I
> don't see what
> > difference it makes...
>
> Click on the email, on mine, it brings up a n
On Tuesday 05 October 2004 01:56 pm, David Brodbeck wrote:
> Saves having to retype the list address, or look it up. I don't see what
> difference it makes...
Click on the email, on mine, it brings up a nice to empty message with the
email address..
Jeff
pgp50O9uZVT4t.pgp
Description: PGP si
On Tuesday 05 October 2004 01:55 pm, you wrote:
> We're not perfectionist like you. :)
Actually its proper email etticate.. look it up if you don't believe me..
Jeff
pgpjB48FEXyL0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Smelser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Whats the deal and this list? No one can ever just hit new
> message, they
> always hit reply and put a new subject in..
Saves having to retype the list address, or look it up. I don't see what
difference it makes...
We're not perfectionist like you. :)
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Smelser [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 2:23 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: update MySQL
>
> On Tuesday 05 October 2004 01:14 pm, Ed Lazor wrote:
You're close. I hit reply to all, typed in a new subject, and then modified
the To field by removing all but the [EMAIL PROTECTED] address.
Come to think of it, I'm hitting reply on this message as well.
What difference are you seeing that makes this significant?
-Ed
> -Original Message--
On Tuesday 05 October 2004 01:14 pm, Ed Lazor wrote:
> Does anything need to be done to my data while upgrading the server from
> 3.23 to 4.0.21?
Whats the deal and this list? No one can ever just hit new message, they
always hit reply and put a new subject in..
Geez.. This list is horrible with
On Friday 20 December 2002 22:08, John Chang wrote:
> I e-mailed the list but haven't received a response. I have win2k w/
> 3.23.53 and need to update it to 54. Is there a patch or do I have to do a
> reinstall or install on top of it?
You can just install 3.23.54 over 3.23.53, but backup of t
Hi,
didn't really understand what you are asking.. Can you please be more
specific? What exactly you are asking?
Gurhan
-Original Message-
From: Valerie Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 5:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: update mysql database via php fo
> Question is there something wrong with this syntax when using the MYSQL
> Update command in PHP , where I change the record by users editing the
> fields on a web form then those are extracted to update a record in a
> table.
> Here's what I have tried I don't get any syntax errors with either
> $query1 = "UPDATE Qusers SET $field_str WHERE UserName='$username'";
> $result2 = mysql_query($query1);
It should be:
update Qusers set field_name='$field_str' where username='$username'";
-
Before posting, please check:
ht
26 matches
Mail list logo
