[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: HiJacking Threads Was: hostapd for Fedora 10

Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Ed Greshko <Ed Greshko greshko com> wrote:
>> Yes....  I probably should have removed a few more headers as well to
>> totally break it out.   But, now this reply will be out of thread with
>> your response.
>> Bottom line....  People start new messages rather than trying to reply
>> to an old one and then change the subject and all....  So, now that it
>> is completely mucked over....  :-)
> 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 who hijack threads and plead that they "fixed" the
> Subject line should be told about this so they don't do it again.
Hummm....  Can't say that I recall an RFC that fully/adequately covers
threading.  Can you cite the RFC?

Yet, and pardon my repetition, even *if* there are RFCs that cover how
email clients are supposed to handle threading people should *not* be
taking an existing message and attempting to turn it into a "new"
message.  There will always be email clients that don't fully conform to
the RFC's and there will always be email clients that will attempt to go
beyond what they RFC's mandate.  Not to mention that most of the headers
that email clients do use to help in threading aren't normally accessible.

Besides, I could never figure out how hitting reply, changing the
subject, and changing the body, to create the illusion of a "new*
message is easier than just actually writing a new message.

You're dead, Jim. -- McCoy, "Amok Time", stardate 3372.7
Mei-Mei Greshko greshko com http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=cCSz_koUhSg

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]