* Tom Emerson [04-21-03 12:40]:

On Monday 21 April 2003 06:06, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

* James Mohr [04-21-03 02:12]:

...

Those that do not use a threaded mail reader do not see a problem, [...] it is in everyone's intereste to start a *new* thread and not simply reply to an existing one and then change then subject.

There has been some discussion on the kmail list on how to handle someon who does this (intentionally or otherwise) by detecting it has happened, scanning for "more-or-less proper" ways of altering a thread heading (i.e. use of "was <oldsubject>") and zapping the "references" header as appropriate. I think it is a nice idea and will help "educate" those new to the system, but it only addresses the problem from -one- e-mail client.

This will not correct the situation of thread theft. A *new* subject, removal of *In-Reply-To:* and *References:* headers must also be done. But the damage is already done. If you search the archives in threaded mode (which is the only way to follow a specific topic to completion) the stolen thread will still appear in the wrong location and interrupt the original thread. The *only* solution is to do it correctly, period.

...

Your heart is in the right place but, sadly I fear, you are beating a dead horse. Courtesy and Respect appear to be lost attributes.

I noticed that the sudden rise in thread-theft occured immediately after 8.2 started arriving in people's hands -- I wonder if there are far more "new" people to this list because 8.2 is their first into to linux (or first intro to SuSE) It could be possible that use of other e-mail clients, which didn't support threading in the first place, has them "trained" the wrong way...

It is more likely that they have *no* knowledge of what a *thread* is and how it is used. A very similar situation is asking for help about two or more completely different subjects in the same post and the use of non-specific *Subject:* headers. It is common practice with almost anyone who receives many emails to scan the *Subject:* headers and delete threads that they have no interest. Failure or *refusal* to trim quotes and sometimes above, sometimes below text answers that destroy readability are also *very* common millstones. Education and continual correction (many miss-call it policing) is the only likely solution, with wholesale commitment. Being courteous and respecting others. -- Patrick Shanahan Please avoid TOFU and trim >quotes< http://wahoo.no-ip.org Registered Linux User #207535 icq#173753138 @ http://counter.li.org Linux, a continuous *learning* experience

One word: ***** A N A L ****** Just my opinion.

On Monday 21 April 2003 20:02, Patrick Shanahan wrote: <SNIP>

...

It is more likely that they have *no* knowledge of what a *thread* is and how it is used. A very similar situation is asking for help about two or more completely different subjects in the same post and the use of non-specific *Subject:* headers.

One word: netiquette. You can read all the FAQs you want, but I think it comes best from practice.

...

It is common practice with almost anyone who receives many emails to scan the *Subject:* headers and delete threads that they have no interest.

So, as I said , threading is a useful tool to help manage the large number of messages.

...

Failure or *refusal* to trim quotes and sometimes above, sometimes below text answers that destroy readability are also *very* common millstones.

For the best response to someone who "refuses" to be polite is to simply ingore them. I see enough threads as well as messages on my own web site were people seem to think we are "obligated" to provide support and often get angry when we do not spend all of our free time working to sovle **their** problem. When that happens I simply stop reading people's posts.

...

Education and continual correction (many miss-call it policing) is the only likely solution, with wholesale commitment. Being courteous and respecting others.

Which requires either that we educate them or expect (demand???) that they read an FAQ somewhere. To me if we expect that people read an FAQ, it will not get done in a large enough percentage of cases to make it not worth the effort. Instead the continual correction not only corrects the person who committed the "infraction", but also helps educate other people **before** something happens.

On Monday 21 April 2003 15:41, Vince Littler wrote:

...

1] Is there any standard on threading and how does is it implemented? I can see the benefit, but I am reluctant jump through hoops to support a non-standard.

Whether threading is a de facto or de jure standard, I cannot say. However, it is present in every mailing list and news group I frequent. Whether or not it is used in other mailing lists, or whether or not it is a "non-standard" is mute. This mailing list does implement threads, many, many people rely on them to help manage the message and therefore provide better support. It is simply polite to adher to the "standards" of this list. My **interpretation** of what you are saying is:

"I am reluctant jump through hoops to make it easier for people to provide me free support."

It's quite simple. The people with more experience are most often the ones who answer questions and solve problems. The people with more experience are most often the ones who use threading to manage the messages. So, do you want alienate exactly those people are most likely to solve your problem?

...

2] How do I do a reply to all, capture a quote and start a new thread all in one go? [Never mind my mail program, just in general terms]

You can't do it "all in one go". You have to work a little for it. For example, this message. Since you replied to me and not the list and what I needed to say was valueable for the entire list I had to reply-all to one message and then cut-n-paste the reply to your message.

To get the email address in reply-all, it is also a simple matter of cut-n-paste. ( a total of 3 seconds).

As Patrick put it, the key is "Being courteous and respecting others."

Regards,

jimmo -- --------------------------------------- "Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden --------------------------------------- Be sure to visit the Linux Tutorial: http://www.linux-tutorial.info --------------------------------------- NOTE: All messages sent to me in response to my posts to newsgroups, mailing lists or forums are subject to reposting.

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 22:26, Todd Bissell wrote:

On Tuesday 22 April 2003 16:21, Jim Norton wrote:

...

One word: ***** A N A L ******

Just my opinion.

Here here.

Where, where?

I thought I was the only one thinking this....

Check the archives, there are lots of people who think the netiquette wars have gone overboard. But ever since I started filtering Shanahan I've been relatively spared of that particular waste of bandwidth

* Jim Norton (jrn@oregonhanggliding.com) [030422 14:23]: ->One word: ***** A N A L ****** -> ->Just my opinion.

Yeah. No use bitching about people changing the subject and sending an email. What I do is just delete their email with out opening it. If they asked anything of worth or said anything of worth I'd never know because they didn't respect the fact that a lot of us use threads. It could be why some people post a second time saying they didn't get a response. It could be that someone like me who knew the answer didn't give a crap about answering it because they decided to highjack the thread.

Remember that anyone can send any kind of email to the list but it doesn't mean it's going to get read or that it won't produce a pissy response. *shrug*

I agree in part. However, some people take things way TOOO far when it comes to stuff like this. And in this case, we are getting pretty damn close to it.