On December 16, 2000 at 09:42, Ian Wilson wrote:
> The problem is that some (many I suspect) people will
> start a new thread by doing a reply-to an existing thread and then changing
> the subject - so we can end up with threading like:
>
> [PROTEL EDA USERS]: Protel / Specctra problems, Todd Conard
> � Re: [PROTEL EDA USERS]: Protel / Specctra problems, Michael Reagan
> � � [PROTEL EDA USERS]: Drill Drawing symbol reference chart, D. Ch
> ris
> Mackensen
> � � RE: [PROTEL EDA USERS]: Drill Drawing symbol reference
> chart, Tony
> Karavidas
> � � Re: [PROTEL EDA USERS]: Drill Drawing symbol reference
> chart, Abd
> ul-Rahman Lomax
> � � Re: [PROTEL EDA USERS]: Drill Drawing symbol reference
> chart, Geoff
> Harland
> � . Re: [PROTEL EDA USERS]: Protel / Specctra problems, Todd Conard
> � � . Re: [PROTEL EDA USERS]: Protel / Specctra problems, Pet
> er Bennett
> � � . Re: [PROTEL EDA USERS]: Protel / Specctra problems, Mic
> hael Reagan
> � . [PROTEL EDA USERS]: Sch3 Library Editor Defaults., Ian
> � � . RE: [PROTEL EDA USERS]: Sch3 Library Editor Defaults.,
> Eric Bobillier
>
> Clearly there are actually three threads here. How can I best get the
> archive to thread something like this? I want the thread based view but it
> would good if the threading was a little more reliable.
MHonArc keys off the in-reply-to and references fields. If a message
defines either field that references a message in the archive, MHonArc
treats it as a follow-up, regardless of the subject text. I've seen
threads where the subject text is changed, but the message(s) are still
part of the main thread.
> I have requested that people start a new message (and hence thread) when
> they want to create a new discussion thread but not everyone will wish to
> do this.
Probably because of laziness. If a user selects "reply" to a message,
they are implying that the message they are composing is a follow-up
to the message. If a new discussion is desired, they should be selecting
"new/compose/<whatever-equivalent>". It's easy for humans to see
what the actual intent was for a person, but much harder for computers.
--ewh
