At 08:43 AM 11/8/00, you wrote:
>>Oops. Didn't see the new thread until just now.
>>
>>Steve, why did you originate a new thread when the other one was
>>progressing? No need to answer, but it would be nice to keep messages
>>"threaded."
>
>It had the word Solved at the end. That's a common thread change method.
True enough - if it had been in reply to the original thread. For instance,
this reply will be connected to the current thread even though I've changed
the subject line. I suspect it will contain the field:
In-Reply-To: <p05001900b62f331f2295@[192.168.0.90]>
While your message is shown as a reply to mine via this field:
In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20001108082814.00a3b8d0@pop-server>
And, in turn, my message is threaded by:
In-Reply-To: <p04330100b62f0bfa3406@[38.26.38.118]>
Which is connected to:
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
... a new message (not connected to the thigh bone). So the original
message thread is broken and can't be sorted by thread or even
alphabetically by subject. And we will have 2 threads instead of one at:
http://listserv.uark.edu/archives/direct-l.html
I _really_ didn't mean to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Traffic today
is slow enough that I could have scanned all the subject headers before
replying.
The (rhetorical) question is "Why would anyone want to originate a new
thread when the original is still active/viable?"
--
Mark A. Boyd
Keep-On-Learnin' :)
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to
http://www.penworks.com/LUJ/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list,
email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
