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

Re: HiJacking Threads -- apology & new (OT??) question

On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 20:38 +0000, 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 instance,it might be "Things the Uninitiated Need to 
> Know and Never Get Told.")
>         To do it, I naturally ought to start a new thread -- but also 
> give the passage about the "*In* Reply-to" header, with credit to P O'C 
> and what would be a bibliographic footnote if we were doing this in old-
> fashioned paper journals. 

Common sense would dictate that it's either a reply, or it's not.  

If it's in reply to the prior message, than write it as a reply.  If
it's not in "reply," even if it's something that's been inspired by
another message, then it's a *new* message.

If you need to refer to something from another message, then there's
several ways of doing so:

* Simply quote the part of the message concerned.

* Write something like, "See Fred's message on Tuesday re threading"
into your message.  That allows people to find it.

* Find the URI for the message on the Fedora archive, and include that
in your message.

* Write the message ID for it into your message.  Though, it's a long
time since I've come across a client that could find a message for you
from a quoted message ID (it'd find it in your local cache of messages,
after left- or right-clicking on the ID).  I think it was a usenet
client on the Amiga, or perhaps Forte Inc's Agent, that could do that.

[tim localhost ~]$ uname -r

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.  I
read messages from the public lists.

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