I've always wondered about adding the "was Re" appendage. I mean, if you are following the old thread it should be obvious what's happening. If you haven't been following the old thread, then it doesn't help you to know that the new one grew out of the old one.to the subject line then consider changing it (and adding a "(was Re: ...)")
I only mention this because we change topics pretty fast round here, and nested "was Re:" statements is pretty darn silly.
In fact, I daresay clever modern software does message threading based on something smarter than pattern matching the subject line (oh, tell me that's true), so we could (steady now) change the subject every time we replied, subtly changing it to reflect (radical I know) the contents of the message:
-Speed problems w/ perl
|
\--Optimising Regexps
\--Using the profiler
| |
| \--Profiler broken on OSX??
| \--Profiling article in TPJ
\--XS and re-writing in C for speed
Which let's face it is better than:
-Speed problems w/ perl
|
\--RE: Speed problems w/ perl
\--RE: Speed problems w/ perl
| |
| \--RE: Speed problems w/ perl
| \--RE: Speed problems w/ perl
\--RE: Speed problems w/ perl
Just a thot.
--
Jonathan Peterson
Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, +44 (0)20 7383 6092
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
