Hello all, I guess we all know that threading by Reference is is based on the In-Reply-To and References header lines and, to me, is the only method that can be properly called "Threading" because is the only one that allows to follow a 'conversation' as it was produced. That is, it allows you to see which message is a reply to which and to follow 'branches' or sub-threads.
Threading by Subject, From or To should better be called 'Grouping', just like Grouping by Date is, because that is what they do. They may 'group' as a single 'thread' messages from completely different 'conversations', even produced with months of difference, just because they happen to have the same Subject, etc. Threading by Reference is not just a 'nice way' to view and follow 'conversations' in mailing lists like this one. In my case, it is a _must_ for my daily work and this is one of the reasons I chose TB years ago and also the reason why I implemented a 'Manual Re-threading' with the help of PowerPro to cope with messages sent with Outlook/MS Exchange and other e-mail clients that do not include In-Reply-To or References headers. Now, the 3.0.9.x pre-betas have introduced two new 'goodies' that, to me, are a bit contradictory. I will explain why I see the as 'contradictory'. The first 'goodie' is that Threading by Reference is now by Reference _plus_ by Subject. I know some TB users have asked for this but, as I have already said in this list, this should just be another threading option. It should still be possible to thread _only_ by Reference. This, aside of making everybody (or more people) happy, would justify the second add 'goodie', manual re-threading. When threading by Reference+Subject there is no message, or hardly none, that doesn't appear as threaded (whether they are more or less properly 'threaded is another question). What is the use of manual re-threading then? How can you easily tell which messages are properly threaded by Reference and which by Subject? Some times is difficult and t he only way is to actually display In-Reply-To and References in header pane. Before I continue, because there is more, I want to describe a bit why this threading by Reference+Subject is actually an big inconvenience for me. I'll just briefly describe two cases: - On our corporate web site we have a number of programs and plugins for free download after filling a form which is sent to us as a 'weblead'. I get an average of 100 of these per day. After the download an automatic message is sent to the downloader with Subject: 'Thank you for your interest in our products'. At the end of this 'thank you' message they are told to write to us if they need additional information or help about the products(s) downloaded. An average of 10% will write to us and will do so by just replying to the 'Thank you' message. See where I'm getting at? Yes, all those messages we get will have the same Subject but should _not_ be threaded together. They are from different people, about different products and should actually start a new and different thread if we maintain a 'conversation' with them. - A import case. We have two special aliases for 'licensing' and 'support' of our commercial products. Can you imaging how many times the subject is repeated? 'License request', 'Problem with license', etc., etc., quite a number of them. And yes, each new licensing or support query _should_ start a new thread. But now, with this new threading by Reference that is actually by Reference+Subject, this doesn't happen. But I'll get back to manual re-threading now. What's the use of this option if threading by Reference is already "fixed" by this Reference+Subject 'goodie'? This is why I find these two new 'goodies' a bit contradictory. It is not easy to do some thorough testing because of what I have explained above, it is not easy to identify broken threads. I have done some tests though. From the UI point of view it is nice the way manual re-threading is implemented (i.e. dragging messages) but, whatever is done internally, is just a 'dirty trick' that I would not call re-threading and I will explain why. I assume the 'dirty trick' is something done in the *.TBI (index) files for a folder, but I don't know. What I know is that the actual message re-threaded is _not_ modified at all by adding In-Reply-To or References headers (or deleting them for unthread) like I think it should be done and like I do with my PowerPro script. Why do I say it is a 'dirty trick' and not actual re-threading? Just try something. First do a manual re-threading and and now move the 'fixed thread' to another folder. Yes, _threading_is_gone_. Same thing happens if you export and then re-import the thread and, although I have not tested it yet, I would assume it will happen the same if you backup and then restore, re-filter to some other folder, revert to a previous version like 3.0.2.10, etc. This is why I call it a 'dirty trick' and _not_ actual re-threading. In summary. I am greatly disappointed with this new threading by Reference+Subject (but still called by Reference). I'm not asking to go back to _only_ by Reference like it was before. To make everybody happy and avoid discussions I think it should not be that difficult to have both options: by Reference _only_ and by Reference+Subject. I cannot use these pre-betas or betas for normal daily work (which is how I really test them) and I can't do any further testing on manual re-threading until I can thread by Reference only. Also, unless manual re-threading is changed to actual/real re-threading I will still have to use my PowerPro script. -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v3.0.9.8 Return (pre-beta) on Windows 2000 5.0 Service Pack 4 ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.0.9.8 Return | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
