Earl Hood wrote:
>
> ---Alexandre Farcy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > 4/ My personal wish would be a new (boolean) resource that
> > > > would tell MHonArc whether or not it should thread messages
> > > > with identical subjects.
> > >
> > > This is reasonable. I did not do one when subject-based detection
> > > was implemented since there was no user demand at the time to
> > > have it. My impression was users always wanted subject-based
> detection
> > > since in most cases, there are implied threads with messages with
> the
> > > same subject. In the uncommon case when the like subject messages
> are
> > > not part of the same (implied) thread, you just have to accept it.
> > >
> > > I.e. It is all or nothing with subject-based detection.
> >
> >
> > all right, but would it be hard to have "possible follow-ups" put
> > outside of the thread ?
>
> How would this be different from having a resource to turn subject-based
> detection off? If on, there is the implication that the messages
> should be considered part of the thread. The default "possible
> follow-ups" text that shows up is to give the reader the idea that
> the following groups of messages may not actually be part of the
> thread. Since the messages are normally part of the thread, it
> is best to have MHonArc group the messages within the thread.
to my opinion, 2 messages with exactly the same subject should NOT be
groupped together within a same thread... for example, monthly postings
with always the same title ("what's new ..." or something like that)
would be threaded, and i would prefer to have them in separate threads.
a resource that would turn subject-based detection (identical subjects)
ON or OFF would be fine to me ;-)
Alexandre
--
