still netiquette (was: [nycbug-talk] GENERIC 5.2-RELEASE #0)

Jan Schaumann jschauma
Wed Feb 18 12:10:58 EST 2004

Kliment Andreev <klimenta at> 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
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 

More information about the talk mailing list