Re: *** ADMIN: Posting a new message

Comments inline.

David Gibbs wrote:

Joe Pluta wrote:

And it shouldn't. The mailing software should be smart enough to
use a change in subject to break the thread, or at least have that
as an option. Obviously, it has to handle RE: but that's not rocket
science. If you look over the entire list, it's clear that the
intent of changing the subject is to break the thread.

Well, that's just not the way it works.

There are headers in email messages named "message-id",
"In-Reply-To", and "References". These headers, in combination, are
how most email programs, and the list archiving program, tie threads
together ... so, if the subject changes, the messages are still
specifically tied together. This is also how a message thread display
can be multi-level where specific messages are in reply to another
message (i.e., this message will show in the archives as in reply to
Joe's response and not to my original post).

And works correctly. Both /corrected/ subjects and /side note/ subjects can remain in the same thread due to its reply-to message-id. So in my case it would become 'dumb enough' of the software to reassign my replies _for me_ as new messages. I would however, not oppose the later noted idea of, an option or a helpful reminder to inform that I might be intending to start a new thread. However I believe a bigger problem is /digest mode/ for which subjects are often mucked up by the user, and thus the threading software often ends up just starting a new thread.

Keep in mind that the 'Re:' on a reply is totally optional ... and, depending on the language, might be totally different (i.e., AW:, Antwort:, etc). Mail programs may or may not be able to detect the prefix and the list archiving software has a pre-defined list of
Reply prefixes.

I wonder then, why do Birgitta's replies never seem to be threaded properly in the NG? Is the software being used lacking an AW: as synonym of RE:? Or do these comments only apply to Archive threading; i.e. not about the NG threading? If the comment about the "Mail programs" suggests the problem is the client, how would a client providing the /reply prefix/ not be aware of what it is doing?

<<SNIP>>

Regards, Chuck