Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3964 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] network transfer speed on SuSE 9.2 (SOLVED)
  • From: Leendert Meyer <leen.meyer@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:55:42 +0100
  • Message-id: <200411162355.42434.leen.meyer@xxxxxxx>
On Tuesday 16 November 2004 22:34, Vince Littler wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 November 2004 8:25 pm, Brian Jackson wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 November 2004 00:21, Johan Nielsen wrote:
> > > Plz start a seperate thread for this issue.
> >
> > Umm, I did start a separate thread.
>
> You thought you did, but actually you started composing your email by
> replying to a random mail on another topic and then clearing out the
> Subject and body, thinking that is sufficient. If you do this, many people
> will know that this is what you have done, because for their email client
> it will appear in the thread you randomly chose to reply to.

What happens is that every reply contains information that refers to the
message you "replied" to: the 'References' header and the 'In-Reply-To'
header. These are from the message I replied to:

References: <200411141657.25620.michaeltnorman@xxxxxxxxx>
<200411160921.01491.yep@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<200411161225.58978.brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

In-Reply-To: <200411161225.58978.brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

(actually they are just two lines)

Whith this information, several newsreaders (KMail) can display messages in a
tree like way:

Subject1
|
+-- Re: Subject1
|
+-- Some different subject that does not belong here
|
+-- Re: Subject1

I like this very much. Sometimes people (yes, me too) get a bit upset if the
threading is disrupted by a 'thread-hijacker'. ;)

The way I prevent myself from hijacking threads is:

In KMail, I click on the email-address of the list that usually is displayed
in the 'To:' header of the mail I'm viewing. In KMail this is click-able, and
a click opens a 'New email' with the right address already inserted.

> People will tell you that you have hijacked a thread, but never actually
> explain how they know or why this is bad. There, I have said too much
> already.

Vince:
I don't think you said too much. Perhaps it is good to explain this once in a
while. :)

Cheers,

Leen

< Previous Next >