[Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html]
Incorrect quotation, long/short syndrome. On Saturday, 4 January 2003 at 13:00:50 -0000, Ian Watkinson wrote: > On 03 January 2003 23:17, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >> On Friday, 3 January 2003 at 10:10:56 +0000, Ian Watkinson wrote: >>> On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 23:39, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >>>> On Thursday, 2 January 2003 at 15:39:07 +0000, Ian Watkinson wrote: >>>>> Trying to get Fetmail - Procmail - Exim working. >>>> >>>> Please don't reply to a thread with a completely different topic. >>> >>> Thread? Threads are in usenet, this is a mailing list. >> >> Mail uses threads as well. See RFC 2822. > > Well you learn something new every day. > > Care to explain why filtering on it, rather than subject is better > in your opinion, most list that I sub do, what I've just done, and > go from one subject to another, with the subject changing as the > contents do, your filter, therefore would do nothing, as we're not > talking about X-windows, or Procmail, but Filtering now. I'm not sure I understand that sentence. But I gave you two images to compare. If you don't understand that, I don't know what else to do. >>>> This message is: >>>> >>>> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>> That's not in my original headers looking at the full headers of >>> the message I posted. >> >> Yes, that's there. That's where I got it from. > > Strange, it must be a Evolution bug then, because even with full headers > on, I can't see it. Quite possibly. >>>> That is a thread about problems starting X applications. It >>>> makes it (remainder of sentence missing) >>> Er, no the subject makes it quite clear it's a post about Procmail >>> and Exim, on Freebsd. >> >> No, you replied to a thread on X. You changed the subject, >> but you left in the In-Reply-To: and Reference: headers. > > But the subject still makes it clear what the message is about, > again, I've changed the subject here to match what were talking > about. Ignoring the original post, your filtering is still out now > in a valid case. I'm not sure I parse that sentence, but I think you repeat it more clearly below. >>>> really difficult to follow to find a completely unrelated set of >>>> messages in the thread. It also makes it much more difficult to >>>> filter with procmail, BTW. >>> >>> What's wrong with filtering on Subject? >> >> It doesn't show the relationships between the messages. Look >> at the two attachments. > > But it doesn't show the relationship between this message and the > last, and this is a valide case of a message thread changing topic. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If you mean "this message isn't threaded with the previous ones", you're wrong. That's what I'm trying to say. Repeat after me: "Changing the subject doesn't change the thread". And take a look at the first attachment. >>> and where the posting FAQ is for the list, as I seem to have missed >>> the don't reply to the list and change the subject bit.. >> >> Try http://www.lemis.com/questions.html. But this isn't related >> only to FreeBSD-questions. It's a general issue. Note also that >> it makes people less likely to want to reply to them. > > Heh, do I see a familiar looking screenshot? > > Can I have a copy of your pine config that allows you to filter like > that then? This is mutt. It does it out of the box. You might like to read http://ezine.daemonnews.org/200210/ports.html. Greg -- When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients. If you don't, I may ignore the reply or reply to the original recipients. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/questions.html See complete headers for address and phone numbers
<<attachment: thread.gif>>
