Doug, On Monday 06 February 2006 11:06, Doug McGarrett wrote:
There has recently been some scolding about hi-jacking a thread, one of the most recent being with a thread called Bridge software, which I have unfortunately already sent to Limbo.
I didn't perceive any such hi-jacking in the thread, which apparently had one question and two or three responses, all relevant.
The post was on-topic for the list. What is being objected to as "hijacking" is the use of the mail client's "reply" function to start a brand new topic. Many of us use mailers that organize messages into hierarchical structures based on replies (these structures are called threads). This is done not by the subject (*) but by examining normally hidden header fields. Thus hitting "reply" and altering the subject, as some find more convenient than either typing a posting address or creating an address book entry, puts the message into the thread hiearachy of the message that was the target of the "reply" command when it belongs as a "top-level" message that begins a thread of its own. (*) Some mailers will organize pseudo-threads based on subject or will have an option to use subject fields in addition to explicit In-Reply-To headers to place a message into a thread.
So I am a bit confused. A related question is this:
Is it concidered within the bound of Netiquette to send a threaded subject with, say, "SOLVED" at the end?
It's certainly acceptable and many consider it to be beneficial, with one caveat: Only the the original poster (the "OP") should make such a declaration, since only that person can truly know whether their problem was solved.
How about a subject which I recently sent, where I added "--more" at the end, to distinguish it from a previous post that I had sent with the same subject. (The one with "--more" had further information.)
In fact, you should have used "reply," so that the second post, the one that amplified or completed the original, would be in the same thread as the original.
This message was actually sent using the fwd command,
The mail client's forward command should be used for--get this--forwarding the mail to someone outside the audience of the original posting.
i.e., suse-linux-e@suse.com 10:49 PM 2/2/2006 -0500 1 Fwd: Re: [SLE] OCR software--more and I never saw it on the list. I make no secret of reading and replying using Eudora Pro 4.0 in Windows-- I'm really happier with it than KMail, which is certainly usable, but I don't like the way it works. (Of necessity, I recently gave KMail about a week's trial.)
Eudora is a good client and it has some features I still miss in KMail, but they're few and non-essential. KMail is a superb mail client, but these are matters of opinion. And it doesn't run on any of the platforms that support Eudora (to my knowledge).
In case that message never did get to the list, I will briefly reiterate: they seem to be looking at porting Omnipage to Linux, if there is enough interest. Or perhaps I misunderstand: perhaps what they really want is a Linux maven to port it for them. Anyway:
www.nuance.com/omnipage/capturesdk/linux/
--doug
Randall Schulz