Re: [Evolution-hackers] Thread Stealing (Was: Re: Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?)
On Wed, 2018-05-30 at 01:43 +0200, Garreau, Alexandre wrote: > If you inspect the In-Reply-To headers you’ll see none of these is > marked as an answer to another, yet References mark them because some > of them do reference the other ones. Hi, I highly doubt any regular user even knows anything about the internals. They care of the result. And what you did has the result as shown in the attachment. That's a very good habit to discuss one issue in one thread (or even bug report), though I agree it's not always possible. While you think the things are related, then the X-Mailer has nothing to do with Reply- to-List (it just happened that you wrote both messages), still if I'm not interested in the X-Mailer thread then when I collapse it (or mark it to be ignored) I lost track of the other threads. I also expect that you did put some effort to have the References header filled in the other messages, which just shows that even you can do that manually, regular users will not do it, unless they have tools for it. Anyway, we diverged from the subject from my point of view, we just discuss our habits and preferences, which obviously differ. Each has its pros and cons, I'm not questioning that. My personal past experience is that changing someone habits is pretty hard (near to impossible), no matter what any document can suggest as the best practice. Again, consider regular users, corporate environments (top posting), incorrect quoting, when people cannot distinguish between instant messaging and e-mail (they try to use instant messaging habits in e-mails, huh) and so on. Bye, Milan___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
[Evolution-hackers] Thread Stealing (Was: Re: Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?)
On 2018-05-29 at 10:06, Milan Crha wrote: > On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 02:48 +0200, Garreau, Alexandre wrote: >> (not the same thing as a thread may change topic by having one of its >> participant changing its subject line) > > Hi > off topic: > a) I'm replying intentionally to the list Like everybody does (and is expected to do) here right (…from what I understood)? > b) I'm talking to you, the person written at the very first line >of this mail, because "Garreau, Alexandre wrote:" That contradicts my interpretation of the “To:” header line, but beside frustration and past misunderstandement… okay… > c) I do not know how much intentionally you did it, but you wrote >three different topics here, in a way that there is one thread >which covers all three topics in a very sad way. They use to >call it "thread stealing". Isn’t stealing about something that’s not yours? All three messages did references other ones because I first wrote all them in one enormous message with cross-references in it then separated in 3 messages that did link to each other through message-id as footnode. Also I didn’t find any information about “thread stealing” anywhere on the web nor in RFC nor in mailing-lists I use beside this 2002 message on debian-user (back to a time I wasn’t subscribed to it) [1] If you inspect the In-Reply-To headers you’ll see none of these is marked as an answer to another, yet References mark them because some of them do reference the other ones. I tried to follow what I did understand the first [2] and last [3] time I did read about them, In-Reply-To and References headers were distinguished in this way. It also sometimes happen, the same way, that I happen answering several messages with one messages, in which case my message have several messages in the In-Reply-To header, but I happen to use only this one for identifying how does flow a thread, while references is much to identify what might have been missed in a discussion (as it may reference how is it meant to be placed related to a sibling or even nephew of the current thread without necessarily answer to it, so that to correctly displaying orphan siblings in a single thread). [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/11/msg00664.html [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc822 [3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.4 ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
