On Tuesday 22 April 2003 7:51 am, Tom Emerson wrote:
On Monday 21 April 2003 10:44 pm, Benjamín Ubach wrote:
Maybe i'll get flamed but could anyone here recommend some place to learn "List etiquette"? I'm kinda new to this stuff, but just learnt about "top-posting" :-)
... I just did a search for "rfc netiquette" [since I knew that "netiquette" has been codified in an "rfc", which is a "request for comments" in case you were wondering] The RFC number for this article is number 1855, and this is the "first hit" that google returned:
http://marketing.tenagra.com/rfc1855.html
I'd also like to direct you to this great site:
I had hoped that these sites would have helped clarify my question 1 below, but as far as I can see, they advocate threading and the latter only mentions Mutt as supporting it, without saying exactly what it is On Tuesday 22 April 2003 6:33 pm, James Mohr wrote:
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?
No, the point about a standard is not moot. If Mutt implements a certain something and calls it threading and Outlook implements something else and calls that threading, which is right? If I reply to a post and quote [and I make a _subjective_ judgement that the topic is changed] and I only change the subject line, then who is anybody to tell me that I have not changed the thread. And who is anybody to argue if I say that Mutt is broken because it does not recognise my new thread. Without a standard, there is nothing to argue about one way or the other, there is no such thing as a thread and this whole thread is a void. Don't think I am arguing against it, not for one moment. I do see the benefits, threading would be a good thing. I think that given a standard, we can look to mail programs supporting 'reply on existing thread' and 'reply on new thread'. James, to me you seem to have taken the liberty of interpreting my position to justify staking out an elevated position for yourself as one of those experienced ones who can declare what the standards are on this list by virtue of benevolence in answering questions. So, if I think your answer on Standards is good and complete, you will have merited your position and earned the right to say what the standards are. But if I don't think you have merited your position, I might think it is a rotten answer. As I understand this list, it is a peer support group. There is no division of the helpers and the helped. This is hard when new people come in and don't adhere to issues like threading. But if there is no standard, no one can be accused of failing to conform. Although the link http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html is undoubtedly well meant by both the document and the link authors, I think the tone is so unbearably patronising that it is probably a little counterproductive. On the whole, the idea that people should live their lives on this list in fear of pissing off the person who might answer their question is just plain daft. I have had a lively day on the list recently, but I ain't going to with hold answers from people because of it. If I have pissed someone off and they are not going to help me, that is not a loss, because if I was not on the list, I would neither have enjoyed my lively day nor got an answer anyway. But if they do answer that is all gain! And oh yes, the point of all of this. I think someone /dev/null'ed me. Now I have laid out my philosophy above, I would be grateful to know this explicitly, so I don't spend time answering their questions. In fact, I think that it should be a list standard to name everyone you /dev/null on list. This is a much friendlier rule, because you have to fear that people won't answer your question if you obey it rather than if you ignore it. regards Vince Littler