still netiquette (was: [nycbug-talk] GENERIC 5.2-RELEASE #0)
jschauma at netmeister.org
Wed Feb 18 12:10:58 EST 2004
Kliment Andreev <klimenta at futurebit.com> wrote:
> >While we're bitching about quoting style etc... ;-)
> >If you start a new thread, *do* start a new thread (ie a new message)
> >and don't just send a reply to any old message. Many people use a
> >threaded display for mailing lists, and now this message is integrated
> >into the other thread, with which it doesn't have anything to do.
> I replied to an existing message, but changed the subject. Isn't that
> enough? Probably not with mutt. My apologies. :)
Well, if you leave the 'In-Reply-To' header in the message, then any
client that threads messages will sort the message according to that
header. During a cause of a discussion it is not uncommon for the
subject to change, but still remain one thread.
By convention, such topic changes are usually introduced by a 'Subject:
new subject (was: old subject)' header. The next person following up
would then leave out the '(was: old subject)' part.
> BTW, replying to your mutt message means "open an attachment, copy & paste,
> put ">" in front of every row and hit reply". :)
Wow. I had no idea that Outlook was *that* busted. (Non-list emails
sent using outlook end up in a specific junk folder.) I sure would
change my MUA if I were you. :)
Probability factor of one to one. We have normality. I repeat, we have
normality. Anything you still can't cope with is therefore your own lookout.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.nycbug.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20040218/3ec88d2c/attachment.bin
More information about the talk