A lot of people simply dont know this because they never view their mails by thread. I know I didnt, until I was told off about this some years ago. (I hope Ive managed to behave since then!) On this list there also used to be a convention to top- or tail- reply (I can no longer remember which 'cause I do it so rarely these days) Tony Firshman used to ball us out regularly for misbehaving wrt this. As anyone who tries to write programs for the QL "that just work out of the box" knows only too well, educating the general QLing public is a soul-destroying task. I guess we are a particularly idiosyncratic lot!
Id like to do better, truly I would. I can only keep trying ;o)
Per

On 08/02/2020 21:01, Marcos Cruz via Ql-Users wrote:
Hello.

Probably most of you know that e-mail messages contain, in their
metadata, a unique message identifier and also the unique message
identifier of the responded message, if any. These identifiers allow the
automatic hierarchic organization of messages into threads.

Sometimes in this list, messages that start a new subject, actually are
"responds" to other unrelated messages (even several years old). That is
unlogical, has no advantage, breaks the sense of the threads and makes
reading the list more difficult.

For example, the recent announcement of the 16th Sinclair QL Italian
meeting is a "respond" to the announcement of the 15th meeting (posted
in 2018-10), which was a "respond" to the announcement of the QDOS/SMS
reference manual 4.1 (posted in 2016-09).  And then, three days later,
the announcement of SMSQ/E 3.35 is a "respond" to the announcement of
the 16th Italian meeting...  As a result, without reason, both recent
and interesting announcements belong to (and are "hidden" in) a thread
started more than three years ago, and therefore they don't appear as
two independent new threads at the top of the current hierarchy of
messages in 2020-02, as they should.

I know some webmail services don't care about the message identifiers
and use the subject fields instead in order to recreate and display the
threads, but that's not the way e-mail is supposed to work.  Perhaps
that is the reason some users don't realise the trouble caused by
writing a new message by "replying" to whatever previous unrelated
message, instead of writing an actual new message.

Changing the subject in a thread only makes sense when the actual
respond naturally leads to a different topic, but there's a helpful
convention to mark that cases: "Re: New subject (Was: Old subject)".

Please remember a basic rule of e-mail (lists) etiquette: New subject,
new message; only respond to a message if you actually want to respond
to what that message contains.

Thank you in advance.

Kind regards.


_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List

Reply via email to