1 |
Paul Stear <gentoo@××××××××××××.com> posted |
2 |
200610051038.23730.gentoo@××××××××××××.com, excerpted below, on Thu, 05 |
3 |
Oct 2006 10:38:23 +0100: |
4 |
|
5 |
> On Wednesday 04 October 2006 17:25, Vladimir G. Ivanovic wrote: |
6 |
>> On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 11:49 +0300, Daniel Iliev wrote: |
7 |
>> > It is not polite when someone asks a new question on a thread with |
8 |
>> > different subject. It is called hijacking and happens when "reply" is |
9 |
>> > used instead of "new message". |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> Agreed, but my mail reader (Evolution) shows his subject to be "How to |
12 |
>> play flac files?" which is a new subject. My mail reader shows Patric's |
13 |
>> original email to be a sub-thread of a previous email with a different |
14 |
>> subject, but I would say that this is a bug in Evolution, not that |
15 |
>> hijacking has occurred. |
16 |
>> |
17 |
> This must be a bug in evolution because I am the user who it appears had |
18 |
> his subject changed. My mail was a new mail (not reply to) with a totally |
19 |
> different subject.. |
20 |
|
21 |
Your "musicbrainz" post was fine, as the start of a new thread (no |
22 |
references header, posted using kmail). It was Patric Douhane's "flac" |
23 |
post (using MSOE) that was the "hijack" of your thread, new, totally |
24 |
unrelated topic (flac) and subject header, but posted as a /reply/ to your |
25 |
(musicbrainz) thread instead of a new post, thus with a references header |
26 |
likewise indicating that it should be threaded under your post. |
27 |
|
28 |
According to the above, Evolution is displaying it exactly as it should |
29 |
(thus it's /not/ a bug), threading the flac subject under the musicbrainz |
30 |
thread because it cites the musicbrainz posts as up-thread references. |
31 |
For all Evolution knows, it was thread drift, and someone simply decided |
32 |
to retitle the subthread to indicate the drift, not a new thread, because |
33 |
that's what the references headers indicate, regardless of what the |
34 |
subject header says. |
35 |
|
36 |
The clients that are bugged are for example, ones that thread together two |
37 |
entirely unrelated posts, received years apart from two different people |
38 |
and without any references headers whatsoever, simply because the subject |
39 |
line of both is a single word, "test". I've seen it happen. Why would |
40 |
two entirely unrelated posts, no references saying they are related, |
41 |
posted literally years apart, entirely different authors, even sent to |
42 |
different receiver addresses on different ISPs (I switched ISPs in the |
43 |
mean time), end up threaded together simply because the subject is |
44 |
similar? It makes no sense! At least threading together posts where one |
45 |
is a direct reply to the other according to the references header, makes |
46 |
sense, even if the human sending the "reply" /should/ have used new-post |
47 |
instead of reply. |
48 |
|
49 |
-- |
50 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
51 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
52 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
53 |
|
54 |
-- |
55 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |