On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 21:00 -0600, Wade Preston Shearer wrote: > > You are definitely mistaken. None of the posts in this thread were > > hijacked (go back and re-read stuart's instructive comments on the > > matter). > > How is taking a message about XFS and changing the subject to Gmail > not hijacking the thread?
There are 2 interpretations of the word "subject". Neither one of them justifies your incorrect usage of the term "hijack". If you mean the natural progression of the thread from one topic to another, that's not hijacking because there's a common history that unites the messages. Remember that email header torriem mentioned Outlook ignores? That header is used to recognize messages with different subject lines but a common history, and distinguish unrelated threads with the same subject line. If you mean changing the subject line displayed by your MUA, updating the subject line is considered good practice when the topic has clearly transitioned from the old topic to something new. Although the sub-thread is clearly distinct from the parent, it is still appropriate to display it as a child of the parent because of related messages in the sub-thread before the subject line was updated. And this why gmail "conversations" annoy me so much. Until we achieve true artificial intelligence, they will continue to fail to algorithmically replicate history destroyed by not supporting simple threading. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
