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
On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 01:51, Vince Littler wrote:
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.
But that is a valid method, I don't think anyone has argued about that. I call it thread drift, I don't know if there's a common term for it. When a thread drifts from the original topic, someone alters the subject to "foo (was: Re. bar)" and it goes on from there. That's not hijacking. In fact, hijacking isn't all that important in email lists, it's more a concern in web forums, where you have separate pages for each subject. If suddenly someone steals the discussion to move to a completely unrelated subject it's a real pain, but in email it's easier to sort and sift.
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'.
I think the opposite is a bigger problem. If someone jumps in to a thread with a complete change of subject, I can deal with that easily enough, but if someone replies "on subject" but "out of thread" by creating a new email with no "In-Reply-To" headers, it's more confusing. That, to me, is a much bigger problem than thread hijacking.
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.
If someone filtered you to /dev/null, how would they be able to read your question asking them to state so? :)
On Wednesday 23 April 2003 01:51, Vince Littler wrote: <snip>
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.
I was referring to the mailing-list/server software. It has to be done at that level because there is no other way to keep track of of individual messages. Each message has an identifier which is at least relative to the mailing-list/server software (if not "world unique"). So replies are in references to this ID. The client has be able to recognize that fact in order to sort/organized the messages. If your client does not support this mechanism then the pointis moot. You won't see the threads. However, you **do** cause problems by simply replying to a thread and changing the subject..
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'.
That's a client issue and not having either of these functions does not reduce the necessity (or at least the benefit) of not replying with subjects that are completely unrelated to the original post.
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.
Sorry, but it seems that you are not aware the *fact* that at least the concept of threading is stardard is a standard. I am not "declaring" any standard it is simply a matter of fact. Take your original message as an example. It has the message ID: <200304230051.45646.suse@archipelago.eclipse.co.uk> In Anders' reply to you, there is this header: In-Reply-To: <200304230051.45646.suse@archipelago.eclipse.co.uk> If the client can process this, then it can process threads. I didn't invent this, so it is not about me or anyone else declaring "what the standards are on this list by virtue of benevolence in answering questions." We are simply requesting people adhere to de facto (de jure???) standards that have been in place for a decade or so. I remember it being an issue when newsgroups were still propogated primarily via UUCP.
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.
I'm not going to sugarcoat it no beg you to make it easier for people to help you. There are many people on this list who have an obnoxious attitude and I simply ignore there messages. I am also sure that there are a few people who have me in their kill file. I am not going to loose sleep over it. Besides there was no accusation of "failing to conform." It was a simple request not to reply to a thread with a different topic.
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!
Well, how you do expect people to answer your question if they cannot find it? The orinigal post was a problem I was having with the reiserfs and it suddenly switched to a question about fonts. People who don't know about the reiserfs might leave that thread collapsed and miss the question about fonts. Its not intentional, it is simply easier to leave all threads collapsed until you start reading them, particullary with the amount of traffic this list has. So even if you haven't pissed anyone off, your question gets lost. <snip> 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.
On Wednesday 23 April 2003 7:11 pm, James Mohr wrote:
On Wednesday 23 April 2003 01:51, Vince Littler wrote: <snip>
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.
<snip and change of context>
Take your original message as an example. It has the message ID: <200304230051.45646.suse@archipelago.eclipse.co.uk> In Anders' reply to you, there is this header: In-Reply-To: <200304230051.45646.suse@archipelago.eclipse.co.uk>
Now we get to the core of it. Firstly, there is some sort of data structure within email which supports threading. But secondly, this data structure is _only_ [partially] visible at the receiving end, but it is controlled at the sending end, where it is not actually normally 'visible' to the sender as part of his Application Interface [ie email client]. My own take on this is that although the infrastructure is in place, the threading feature is not sufficiently mature for anything other than voluntary use because: 1] there is not sufficient agreement on the application of the feature [eg the issues raised by Anders] 2] hence there is no actual standard in place 3] hence there is no client support for a threading standard, particularly at the sending end [eg 'reply to current thread' and 'reply to new thread']. Now, if _all_ these issues were sorted out, I would feel that barking at newbies for violation of thread integrity would be justified. But let's face it, on the majority of clients there is no button to press or drop down dialog or anything to see what thread you are on or change it in any way - the user only has the reply button and the 'subject' fields to play with - I know, you told me how to do this - it is easy, but it is far from obvious. In other words, the problem is _not_ a User problem, it is a User Interface problem. As such, I think the constructive place for addressing the problem is with 1] 2] and 3] above. The hardest part is 1], but with this, 2] could be easy and a selection of clients supporting 3] would be totally possible. Until then, perfect threading will surely be a dream. <WordsThatWillHauntMeMode=ON> And if Linux flourishes the way we would all wish, we are going to see some newbie top posters who are into some very Microsoftish ways... <WordsThatWillHauntMeMode=OFF> regards Vince Littler
On Wednesday 23 April 2003 21:03, Vince Littler wrote: <snip>
My own take on this is that although the infrastructure is in place, the threading feature is not sufficiently mature for anything other than voluntary use because: 1] there is not sufficient agreement on the application of the feature [eg the issues raised by Anders] 2] hence there is no actual standard in place 3] hence there is no client support for a threading standard, particularly at the sending end [eg 'reply to current thread' and 'reply to new thread'].
Now, if _all_ these issues were sorted out, I would feel that barking at newbies for violation of thread integrity would be justified. But let's face it, on the majority of clients there is no button to press or drop down dialog or anything to see what thread you are on or change it in any way - the user only has the reply button and the 'subject' fields to play with - I know, you told me how to do this - it is easy, but it is far from obvious.
I disagree there. First, I would consider a decade or so of use to be "sufficiently mature". There *are* applications (i.e. mail readers the implement this feature and the fact that some applications do not take advantage of this feature does not mean the feature is not standardized. Should we all ingore HTML standards on our web pages simply because they are not implemented by Microsoft? Also there **is** support for threading on the client end. My email reader (Kmail) **does** support it. I can group my email messages by thread, as well as collapse or expand those threads. When I click "reply" or some variant, my email client rightly assumes that this is a continuation of the same conversation. If not, I click "Post to mailing-list" and it creats a brand new message which is independant of the orignal thread. I am certain that many of the email clients other people use have similar features. Just because they are not labled 'reply to current thread' and 'reply to new thread' does not negate them. In fact, in my mind having different labels confirms the "rightness" of them. You *reply* to the *same* thread, you *post* a *new* thread. Vince, if it were obvious then I wouldn't have needed to point it out. Since many people do not use threaded readers they obviously do not *see* the benefits of threaded messages. That's why I pointed it out and explained what it means (and I really don't see how my post was "barking").
In other words, the problem is _not_ a User problem, it is a User Interface problem. As such, I think the constructive place for addressing the problem is with 1] 2] and 3] above. The hardest part is 1], but with this, 2] could be easy and a selection of clients supporting 3] would be totally possible. Until then, perfect threading will surely be a dream.
Actually I do see it as a *user* problem because there are "User Interfaces" that behave like you suggest. For those that do not use a thread-capable reader, it is up to them to make the extra step and avoid simply reaplying.
<WordsThatWillHauntMeMode=ON> And if Linux flourishes the way we would all wish, we are going to see some newbie top posters who are into some very Microsoftish ways... <WordsThatWillHauntMeMode=OFF>
That's why I try to avoid sugarcoating things. I am not going to gloss over the fact that there are some people who take will ignore others who do not follow accepted standards. This is true not only for mailing lists, but for the world in general. There is no law written or otherwise, that say you should not interrupt someone while they are talking. It is just an "accepted standard". 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.
On Wednesday 23 April 2003 8:59 pm, James Mohr wrote:
I disagree there. First, I would consider a decade or so of use to be "sufficiently mature". There *are* applications (i.e. mail readers the implement this feature and the fact that some applications do not take advantage of this feature does not mean the feature is not standardized. Should we all ingore HTML standards on our web pages simply because they are not implemented by Microsoft?
Well, if it ain't written down, it ain't a standard, regardless of the length of 'use', its age or even its shoe size. And what Christopher Mahmood says about ezmlm-idx indicates that there are multiple implementations trying to achieve the same end. As for HTML standards, I think that just makes my point. What we should do is ignore Microsoft practice [what they do is practice _not_ standards] and use w3c standards. Only if we are feeling kind, we should then detect MSIE and code specially for its limitations, but otherwise we should expect Microsoft to mend their browser. Similarly with threading. If there was a _published_ standard [with broad agreement and enough wrinkles ironed out to be broadly beneficial], I would want a client to support that standard. I would want SuSE to provide clients which complied [presuming on the broadness of SuSE's shoulders!]
Also there **is** support for threading on the client end. My email reader (Kmail) **does** support it. I can group my email messages by thread, as well as collapse or expand those threads. When I click "reply" or some variant, my email client rightly assumes that this is a continuation of the same conversation. If not, I click "Post to mailing-list" and it creats a brand new message which is independant of the orignal thread. I am certain that many of the email clients other people use have similar features. Just because they are not labled 'reply to current thread' and 'reply to new thread' does not negate them. In fact, in my mind having different labels confirms the "rightness" of them. You *reply* to the *same* thread, you *post* a *new* thread.
Your explanation makes total sense - once you know the bit about how messages are associated with threads. However, the problem remains that to most people 'thread' and 'subject' are the same thing and even in Kmail, 'thread' is not obvious as a message attribute in any sense other than the subject [particularly when you initiate the process of composing a message]. Solve that problem and I think that the instantiation of hijacked threads would halve and when the issue is pointed out in the remaining cases, people would be far more inclined to comply, purely through comprehension. This would only leave thread drift, which would be subjective, although godwinating a thread would always cross the line...
Vince, if it were obvious then I wouldn't have needed to point it out. Since many people do not use threaded readers they obviously do not *see* the benefits of threaded messages. That's why I pointed it out and explained what it means (and I really don't see how my post was "barking").
That's [guard dog] barking not barking [mad]. No, that's my perception of reactions to thread hijacking in general [through the ages], rather than of you. I think this has taken us somewhere constructive. regards Vince Littler
Vince Littler <suse@archipelago.eclipse.co.uk> [2003-04-23 14:55]:
Well, if it ain't written down, it ain't a standard, regardless of the length of 'use', its age or even its shoe size. And what Christopher Mahmood says about ezmlm-idx indicates that there are multiple implementations trying to achieve the same end.
It _is_ documented. See RFC822, RFC1036, RFC2076, and the "Son of RFC1036." How various clients locally handle threads (display, search, etc) has nothing to do with not breaking threading in replies. There's no reason to specify local handling -- because it's local -- but every reason to specify the header format of replies because they affect everyone.
Similarly with threading. If there was a _published_ standard [with broad agreement and enough wrinkles ironed out to be broadly beneficial], I would want a client to support that standard. I would want SuSE to provide clients which complied [presuming on the broadness of SuSE's shoulders!]
There is (see above), and SuSE does (kmail, mutt, etc).
However, the problem remains that to most people 'thread' and 'subject' are the same thing...
That's why we're having the discussion: to make it clear what threading is and why it's important. :) The problem is educating users, not lack of documentation.
I think this has taken us somewhere constructive.
If it makes one person switch to a thread-compliant MUA, then yes, it has. :) -rex -- The history of Liberty is a history of the limitation of government power. -- Woodrow Wilson
On Wednesday 23 April 2003 23:06, Vince Littler wrote:
Well, if it ain't written down, it ain't a standard, regardless of the length of 'use', its age or even its shoe size.
Oh, so it's acceptable to fart in an elevator? So, you have no problem with someone saying your wife/girlfriend/mother is fat? In any "society" there are certain rules and "standards". Those that are written down are "de jure" and those these are not are "de facto". A de jure standard ist you don't punch a loadmouth in the face (whether he deserves it or not). A de facto standard says you don't fart in an elevator. If you continue, people simple won't get in the elevator with you. It is a standard to say "please" and "thank you" in polite society. These are not written down, but still *de facto* standards. <snip>
Your explanation makes total sense - once you know the bit about how messages are associated with threads. However, the problem remains that to most people 'thread' and 'subject' are the same thing and even in Kmail, 'thread' is not obvious as a message attribute in any sense other than the subject [particularly when you initiate the process of composing a message]. Solve that problem and I think that the instantiation of hijacked threads would halve and when the issue is pointed out in the remaining cases, people would be far more inclined to comply, purely through comprehension. This would only leave thread drift, which would be subjective, although godwinating a thread would always cross the line...
Other than satisifying someone's need for laziness, what does real benefit does allowing people to hijack threads serve? There are many, many benefits for following netiquette and starting a completely new thread. Not the least of which is that more people will see your question and you will have a greater chance of getting an answer. Where is the benefit for the group (i.e. the mailing list) to accept that thread hijacking is okay? As far as I can see none. Do you have one? If you do not use a threaded reader, then you will not notice the threads. So, either way you see no benefit from threads. On the other hand, those of us that use threaded readers encounter problems when people hijack threads. Just like avoiding people who fart in elevators, continued behaviour that is unacceptable by a group as a whole or by individuals within that group will only alienate them and they may simply ignore you. There are many, very competent and profession people on this list who consider thread hijacking a breach of netiquette. They are within their rights to put a condition on the great support they provide for **free**, are are within their rights to simple ignore people who do not follow certain rules of behaviour. It's the same anywhere. Since we are not discussing any real technical aspects of this, I personally find the discussion pointless. I am simply pointing out that there has been a certain expected behaviour on the Internet for 15-20 years and has thus become a de facto standard. Many people consider it impolite. I simply pointed this out. If you personally choose to ingore this and behave in a manner that many consider impolite simply because it is not written down, that is your choice. <snip> 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.
Vince Littler <suse@archipelago.eclipse.co.uk> writes:
On Wednesday 23 April 2003 8:59 pm, James Mohr wrote:
Similarly with threading. If there was a _published_ standard [with broad agreement and enough wrinkles ironed out to be broadly beneficial], I would want a client to support that standard. I would want SuSE to provide clients which complied [presuming on the broadness of SuSE's shoulders!]
There *is* a published standard - RFC2822. The following extract expands When creating a reply to a message, the "In-Reply-To:" and "References:" fields of the resultant message are constructed as follows: The "In-Reply-To:" field will contain the contents of the "Message- ID:" field of the message to which this one is a reply (the "parent message"). If there is more than one parent message, then the "In- Reply-To:" field will contain the contents of all of the parents' "Message-ID:" fields. If there is no "Message-ID:" field in any of the parent messages, then the new message will have no "In-Reply-To:" field. The "References:" field will contain the contents of the parent's "References:" field (if any) followed by the contents of the parent's "Message-ID:" field (if any). If the parent message does not contain a "References:" field but does have an "In-Reply-To:" field containing a single message identifier, then the "References:" field will contain the contents of the parent's "In-Reply-To:" field followed by the contents of the parent's "Message-ID:" field (if any). If the parent has none of the "References:", "In-Reply-To:", or "Message-ID:" fields, then the new message will have no "References:" field.
On Saturday 26 April 2003 10:57 am, Graham Murray wrote:
Vince Littler <suse@archipelago.eclipse.co.uk> writes:
Similarly with threading. If there was a _published_ standard [with broad agreement and enough wrinkles ironed out to be broadly beneficial], I would want a client to support that standard. I would want SuSE to provide clients which complied [presuming on the broadness of SuSE's shoulders!]
There *is* a published standard - RFC2822. The following extract expands
Found it at http://rfc.net/rfc2822.html and your extract is 3.6.4. - Identification fields. Excellent, this is what I think the whole threading issue needs [and looking back, I see that rex also pointed out this one]. And [at the risk of repeating myself] a client is required which supports this _fully_. As Carlos pointed out, both James Mohr and myself use K Mail. James thinks it is threading compliant, I don't - or rather I think the support is partial. All the complaints over broken threading come from the receiving end where the client visibly supports threading. There are NO complaints about "I cannot control the thread I am sending my message on" from anyone at the sending end, but this is where all of the complaints originate. Andre Truter said:
So, if we see 'hijacking' a conversation as rude and improper, then how can we justify 'hijacking' a thread? It comes down to the same thing.
Jim Norton said:
Some people will simply reply to a mail so they don't have to worry about knowing the email address to post a message to a list. They change the subject and throw in the text according to what they are writing about. <snip> I don't think people are neccessarily being rude, more like uninformed.
I think the reason there are no complaints is firstly that there are 3 conceptual candidates for threading [at least]: 1] Subject line 2] rfc2822 support 3] "normalizing the subject" as used for archiving this list And secondly when someone composes a message, they are only confronted with any choice over 1], which looks very much the same as the threading which they see at the receiving end. Suggestion: =*=*=*=*=*= So what is required is [talking KMail here] in the window for composing a reply, besides the fields for [sending] Identity:, From:, Reply To:, To:, CC:, and Subject:, another field Thread References:. This field would be non editable and would have a tick box beside it saying "Start New Thread", which would blank and restore the Thread References field as it was ticked and unticked. And when the message is sent, the Thread References would be incorporated or not as appropriate. At a stroke this should resolve the thread hijacking issue, because at the sending end you will actually have a visible handle on the real data structure which controls the thread. So are there any takers for this suggestion? Let me know by private email and I will enter it on the KDE wish list. regards Vince Littler
On Sunday 27 April 2003 12:32, Vince Littler wrote:
On Saturday 26 April 2003 10:57 am, Graham Murray wrote:
There *is* a published standard - RFC2822. The following extract expands
Found it at http://rfc.net/rfc2822.html and your extract is 3.6.4. - Identification fields.
Please note that that is not a standard, it is a proposed standard. It hasn't been accepted yet. http://RFC.net/std1.html Section 3.4
The 03.04.27 at 23:17, Anders Johansson wrote:
Found it at http://rfc.net/rfc2822.html and your extract is 3.6.4. - Identification fields.
Please note that that is not a standard, it is a proposed standard. It hasn't been accepted yet.
You should note that most are in the request for comments status, and have been so for many years. They are considered in fact standards. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
On Monday 28 April 2003 22:05, Carlos E. R. wrote:
The 03.04.27 at 23:17, Anders Johansson wrote:
Found it at http://rfc.net/rfc2822.html and your extract is 3.6.4. - Identification fields.
Please note that that is not a standard, it is a proposed standard. It hasn't been accepted yet.
You should note that most are in the request for comments status, and have been so for many years. They are considered in fact standards.
Did you read the link I gave? http://RFC.net/std1.html They're all RFCs, but they are in various levels of the standards process. 2822 hasn't been accepted yet, so far it's still rfc822 that defines internet mail. "Proposed standard" is farily early in the standardization process.
The 03.04.23 at 21:59, James Mohr wrote:
Since many people do not use threaded readers they obviously do not *see* the benefits of threaded messages.
They may not even know they can thread messages. Pine can, but it is somewhat hidden (K). So can balsa, mozilla... -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 21:03, Vince Littler wrote: ---<snip lost of stuff>---
My take on 'thread hijacking' is that the technical reasons, like list managers, email clients, technical standards, etc is a secondary reason for it being a bad idea. I think it is just plain bad manners. (violating social standards) A thread is like a conversation and if you reply to a message with content that is not relevant to that message, you are chipping in. For example, say I was talking to a person(s) about email clients. One person would say: "I like to use Evolution, because it can show threaded messages" Then I reply to him: "The weather here in SA is getting colder now" Some people may say that I am rude, others may think that I am slightly crazy, because I replied with a comment that is totally irrelevant to the discussed topic. So, if we see 'hijacking' a conversation as rude and improper, then how can we justify 'hijacking' a thread? It comes down to the same thing. When you want to talk about something else, start a new conversation. Same with email. -- Andre Truter Software Engineer Registered Linux user #185282 ICQ #40935899 AIM: trusoftzaf http://www.trusoft.za.net <-------------------------------------------------> < The box said: Requires Windows 95 or better... > < So I installed Linux > <------------------------------------------------->
My take on 'thread hijacking' is that the technical reasons, like list managers, email clients, technical standards, etc is a secondary reason for it being a bad idea. I think it is just plain bad manners. (violating social standards) A thread is like a conversation and if you reply to a message with content that is not relevant to that message, you are chipping in.
For example, say I was talking to a person(s) about email clients. One person would say: "I like to use Evolution, because it can show threaded messages" Then I reply to him: "The weather here in SA is getting colder now"
Some people may say that I am rude, others may think that I am slightly crazy, because I replied with a comment that is totally irrelevant to the discussed topic.
So, if we see 'hijacking' a conversation as rude and improper, then how can we justify 'hijacking' a thread? It comes down to the same thing.
When you want to talk about something else, start a new conversation. Same with email.
I can tell you why some people "hijack" threads. And it boils down to not being aware of what they are doing to people who are using threaded email clients. Some people will simply reply to a mail so they don't have to worry about knowing the email address to post a message to a list. They change the subject and throw in the text according to what they are writing about. They don't KNOW what this does to a "thread". Now the only purpose this thread has served was to educate people on the ramifications of replying to a thread instead of creating a new one. I don't think people are neccessarily being rude, more like uninformed. Having said all that, this thread has now outlived its usefullness and I would suggest those of you who wish to argue amongst yourselves, maybe private email would be the way to go?
Vince Littler <suse@archipelago.eclipse.co.uk> [2003-04-23 12:28]: <snip>
Now we get to the core of it. Firstly, there is some sort of data structure within email which supports threading. But secondly, this data structure is _only_ [partially] visible at the receiving end, but it is controlled at the sending end, where it is not actually normally 'visible' to the sender as part of his Application Interface [ie email client].
It's not a data structure. Threading depends on the presence of the Message-ID, In-Reply-To, and References headers which were specified in RFC822 in 1982 (no typo). If you can't see them (except perhaps the new Message-ID and References that will be created when your message is sent), then you have a poor MUA. The fix is obvious, unless you're mailing from a corporate environment that demands that everyone use a broken MUA.
My own take on this is that although the infrastructure is in place, the threading feature is not sufficiently mature for anything other than voluntary use because: 1] there is not sufficient agreement on the application of the feature [eg the issues raised by Anders] 2] hence there is no actual standard in place 3] hence there is no client support for a threading standard, particularly at the sending end [eg 'reply to current thread' and 'reply to new thread'].
Now, if _all_ these issues were sorted out, I would feel that barking at newbies for violation of thread integrity would be justified. But let's face it, on the majority of clients there is no button to press or drop down dialog or anything to see what thread you are on or change it in any way - the user only has the reply button and the 'subject' fields to play with - I know, you told me how to do this - it is easy, but it is far from obvious.
Users (usually) have the option of picking a compliant MUA. If they choose not to, that's their problem and they should be prepared for complaints from people who use compliant MUAs. It's much like letting one's dog sh*t on a neighbor's lawn. People who do it should not be surprised if they get complaints or worse, and saying, "It's not a problem for _me_. Why are you complaining?" isn't going to make the neighbor less angry.
In other words, the problem is _not_ a User problem, it is a User Interface problem. As such, I think the constructive place for addressing the problem is with 1] 2] and 3] above. The hardest part is 1], but with this, 2] could be easy and a selection of clients supporting 3] would be totally possible. Until then, perfect threading will surely be a dream.
Perfect threading will always be a dream because there will always be broken MUAs and people who use them, either out of ignorance or lack of regard for others (nothing personal intended). This is no reason not to use a thread compliant MUA, because several exist. Good MUAs have implemented threading for many years. Below is an example using Mutt (note that a single r(eply) key serves to both follow up or start a new thread): ====================< message to be replied to >================= Subject: Re: header test Message-ID: <20030423202659.GK1282@syntax.nosyntax.net> References: <20030423202413.GJ1282@syntax.nosyntax.net> In-Reply-To: <20030423202413.GJ1282@syntax.nosyntax.net> rex <rex@nosyntax.net> [2003-04-23 13:25]:
header test
boo =======<note that the relevant headers are (optionally) visible >====== =========< what shows in my editor after hitting r(eply) >====== From: rex <rex@nosyntax.net> To: rex@nosyntax.net Cc: Bcc: Subject: Re: header test Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <20030423202659.GK1282@syntax.nosyntax.net> rex <rex@nosyntax.net> [2003-04-23 13:28]:
rex <rex@nosyntax.net> [2003-04-23 13:25]:
header test
boo ========< note that In-Reply-To: is visible and may be deleted >======== (If nothing is added to Cc, Bcc, or Reply-To, these headers will be automatically deleted before the mail is sent. Note that the From: header can be edited)
========< 1st reply leaving In-Reply-To: unchanged >===================== Subject: Re: header test Message-ID: <20030423203016.GM1282@syntax.nosyntax.net> References: <20030423202413.GJ1282@syntax.nosyntax.net> <20030423202659.GK1282@syntax.nosyntax.net> In-Reply-To: <20030423202659.GK1282@syntax.nosyntax.net> rex <rex@nosyntax.net> [2003-04-23 13:28]:
rex <rex@nosyntax.net> [2003-04-23 13:25]:
header test
boo
Left IRT intact ======< note that References and In-Reply-To are handled properly >====== ========< 2nd reply -- In-Reply-To: was deleted >===================== Subject: Re: header test Message-ID: <20030423202910.GL1282@syntax.nosyntax.net> rex <rex@nosyntax.net> [2003-04-23 13:28]:
rex <rex@nosyntax.net> [2003-04-23 13:25]:
header test
boo
Deleted IRT ======< note that the References & In-Reply-To are gone >============= Note that Mutt allows either posting a thread-compliant followup OR creating a new thread with the same r(eply) key. In the latter case, the In-Reply-To: header needs to be deleted, but it's trivially easy because the line appears in the editor where the reply is being composed. When that is done, Mutt automatically deletes the (unseen) References header. -rex -- In the 60s, people took acid to make the world weird. Now, the world is weird, and people take Prozac to make it normal.
* James Mohr (suse_mailing_list@jimmo.com) [030423 10:51]:
I was referring to the mailing-list/server software. It has to be done at that level because there is no other way to keep track of of individual messages. Each message has an identifier which is at least relative to the mailing-list/server software (if not "world unique"). So replies are in references to this ID. The client has be able to recognize that fact in order to sort/organized the messages.
Actually ezmlm-idx, the list manager we use, doesn't rely on message IDs or reference headers for exactly this reason. All of the threading in the archives is done by normalizing the subject. For example, if I wanted to get this thread I could email suse-linux-e-thread.141961@suse.com where 141961 is the ezmlm message number of one of the postings in the thread. This pretty much always works correctly since the "thread hijacker" would have completely changed the subject. In contrast, hypermail (which creates the html archives), uses the message IDs for threading so the "hijacking" is always seen there. -- -ckm
On Wednesday 23 April 2003 21:33, Christopher Mahmood wrote: <snip>
Actually ezmlm-idx, the list manager we use, doesn't rely on message IDs or reference headers for exactly this reason. All of the threading in the archives is done by normalizing the subject. For example, if I wanted to get this thread I could email suse-linux-e-thread.141961@suse.com where 141961 is the ezmlm message number of one of the postings in the thread. This pretty much always works correctly since the "thread hijacker" would have completely changed the subject.
In contrast, hypermail (which creates the html archives), uses the message IDs for threading so the "hijacking" is always seen there.
Aha. Thanks for the, Christopher. It's always a good day when I learn something new. While this does help with the archives, I see the normalizing the subject would be difficult in the "real time" of a mailing list. Or am I missing something? Were you talking about this header? X-Message-Number-for-archive: 141961 So, if I wanted all the messages to a thread, I simply look at the header any message and pull out this number. Is that right? 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.
* James Mohr (suse_mailing_list@jimmo.com) [030423 12:45]:
Actually ezmlm-idx, the list manager we use, doesn't rely on message IDs or reference headers for exactly this reason. All of the threading in the archives is done by normalizing the subject. [snip]
Aha. Thanks for the, Christopher. It's always a good day when I learn something new. While this does help with the archives, I see the normalizing the subject would be difficult in the "real time" of a mailing list. Or am I missing something?
Not really. I have mutt sort by by threads and unset strict_threads so that both the references and subject information is used. Of course, strict_threads would be ideal (and maybe faster) but as long as people use broken mail clients it makes mailing lists hard to read. Even this compromise doesn't work on mailing lists run by very broken stuff like the Lyris list manager on Windows. No references, the message-ids get munged, and the software is so stupid that it will repeatedly insert the list into the subject (e.g., 'Subject: [SLE] Re: [SLE] blah').
Were you talking about this header?
X-Message-Number-for-archive: 141961
Yes, it's also in the sender from.
So, if I wanted all the messages to a thread, I simply look at the header any message and pull out this number. Is that right?
Yep. There are a few other archive command as well, email suse-linux-e-help to see them. -- -ckm
* Christopher Mahmood <ckm@suse.com> (Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 12:59:38PM -0700)
* James Mohr (suse_mailing_list@jimmo.com) [030423 12:45]:
Actually ezmlm-idx, the list manager we use, doesn't rely on message IDs or reference headers for exactly this reason. All of the threading in the archives is done by normalizing the subject. [snip]
Aha. Thanks for the, Christopher. It's always a good day when I learn something new. While this does help with the archives, I see the normalizing the subject would be difficult in the "real time" of a mailing list. Or am I missing something?
Not really. I have mutt sort by by threads and unset strict_threads so that both the references and subject information is used.
;) To quote It's always a good day when I learn something new. ;)
Currently listening to: The Smashing Pumpkins - 08 - Spiteface(tease) (Last Show) Gerhard, (faliquid@xs4all.nl) == The Acoustic Motorbiker == -- __0 Oh lord, I wait for death, And, yes, I have no fear. =`\<, I recall that night, my every breath, And, step along the way. (=)/(=) Closed my eyes, walking, As danger paved the way. The devil, and the darkness Let her evil wander free
The 03.04.23 at 20:11, James Mohr wrote:
I was referring to the mailing-list/server software. It has to be done at that level because there is no other way to keep track of of individual messages. Each message has an identifier which is at least relative to the mailing-list/server software (if not "world unique"). So replies are in references to this ID. The client has be able to
Not really. You are replying to an email from: From: Vince Littler <suse@archipelago.eclipse.co.uk> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:51:45 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.1 Message-Id: <200304230051.45646.suse@archipelago.eclipse.co.uk> with: From: James Mohr <suse_mailing_list@jimmo.com> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:11:40 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 References: <200304230051.45646.suse@archipelago.eclipse.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200304230051.45646.suse@archipelago.eclipse.co.uk> Both "Message-Id" were added by the client software. For example, if you look at my messages on the list, you will see something like: Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304230417090.8645-100000@nimrodel.valinor> So, they are added by the client software, when sending, and has to guaranteed unique. You can see your own answer makes reference to the "Message-Id" of Vince. There is indeed an ID for the list archive, but that is not used for threading at all: it was added a month or so ago. X-Message-Number-for-archive: 141961
recognize that fact in order to sort/organized the messages. If your client does not support this mechanism then the pointis moot. You won't
You both are using KMail. :-) -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
participants (10)
-
Anders Johansson -
Andre Truter -
Carlos E. R. -
Christopher Mahmood -
Gerhard den Hollander -
Graham Murray -
James Mohr -
jrn＠oregonhanggliding.com -
rex -
Vince Littler