"Michael C. Davis" wrote:
> At 07:22 PM 2/11/04 -0000, Rob Dixon wrote:
> >Please guys, not in an existing thread.
>
> Not sure I undestand, looks like a new thread ... ?
>
Nope. You OP on this subject was sent as a response to Rob's post "Re: Array
containment", with references to a couple other posts on the array containment
thread.
There is a lot more going on in e-mail traffic that we see using the short
header view. We usually don't want to see the full headers, because they tend
to clutter the message space, but there is more ot a reply than just the subject
line. The e-mail protocols specified a couple fields, the Message-ID and
References fields in particular, to tie together the posts in a thread.
Unfortunately, many producers of mail clients have done a very poor job in
making use of these header fields. Most threading relies instead on
"idiot-threading" based solely on the subject line. That is really primitive,
since the same subject line could recur in many disparate threads. Amessage ID
is much more determinate.
Anyway, I know that Wiggins will growl at me if I go on any longer about mail
protocols, but suffice it to say that it is better to start a new message and
add in the address manually than to reply to an unrelated post and edit the
subject line.
On my mail-client also, this whole new thread was presented as a subthread of
the unrelated Array containment discussion.
Joseph
The linking information in your OP was:
In-Reply-To:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rob's
post [reply to James]
References:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
James' post [reply to Jan]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jan's post
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>
