Jason Gurtz wrote: > All IMHO: > > Neither 1a or 1b make sense unless the original message was the one which > led to the subject change.
Which is possible, and which is in fact what I had assumed for cases 1a
and 1b.
> Regardless if there is an "Re: ", one should not include it in the
> $oldSubject. The Re: is not part of the subject at hand. It is just
> there, I suppose, as a visual reminder for people that don't have a proper
> threading MUA, or have deleted the previous messages.
Yes, that sounds very reasonable, IMO.
> In addition, I would also suppose that the best behavior would be to drop
> the whole "(Was: ...)" part in any subsequent replies since the subject
> has already been changed and new replies are Re: the new subject. If the
> subject is still close enough to the original one that both should remain
> then I would question whether the subject should really have been changed
> in the first place.
I am not sure whether to agree with the second part here. IMO, "(was:
$oldSubject)" should be dropped in any case. The message with the
"$newSubject (was: $oldSubject)" subject line is the "bridge" message
between old and new subject; the subject changes as intended by the
poster of the "bridge" message.
If we have a thread like
A
->B
->C
and the poster of message C decides that the topic has to be changed
again (or changed back for whatever reason), this would lead to the
following subjects:
A: First subject
B: Second subject (was: First subject)
C: Third subject (was: Second subject)
or
C: First subject (was: Second subject)
Well, the poster would probably rather use
C: First subject again (was: Second subject)
or something like that.
Keeping the "(was: $oldSubject)" part for all messages further down the
thread is harmful, of course, because it causes longer subject lines,
and confusion and a time overhead for the reader(s).
> Looking about at the general state of most people's netiquette around the
> net I would say tough going to get people to abide by any of these
> complexities. I say that as I observe the various LFS lists seem to be
> much better behaved than most places of discussion.
I totally agree here. People reading the LFS lists could never be that
productive if the lists were a mess like in many other places.
:-)
> Maybe some day they
> will teach the proper use of email in grade school and it will be better.
That somehow reminds me of an 11-year-old girl, who asked me: "Nico, how
can I send you encrypted mails?" :-) I think she'll be able to do that
soon, after I get that tutorial finished ...
--
Nico
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-chat FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
