| 1 |
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 14:28 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Wednesday 04 October 2006 11:25, "Vladimir G. Ivanovic" |
| 4 |
> <vgivanovic@×××××××.net> wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-amd64] How to play flac |
| 5 |
> files?': |
| 6 |
> > Agreed, but my mail reader (Evolution) shows his subject to be "How to |
| 7 |
> > play flac files?" which is a new subject. My mail reader shows Patric's |
| 8 |
> > original email to be a sub-thread of a previous email with a different |
| 9 |
> > subject, but I would say that this is a bug in Evolution, not that |
| 10 |
> > hijacking has occurred. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> That's the very *definition* of highjacking. There's a specific header |
| 13 |
> ('References', IIRC) that is used to indicate what thread a message is |
| 14 |
> part of. This is for various reasons, but mostly because matching subject |
| 15 |
> doesn't give you full information about the tree structure of the thread, |
| 16 |
> and attempting to match quoted text can lead to madness. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> While some mail clients provide subject based threading, it is not the |
| 19 |
> correct way to indicate a message is threaded. Subject-based threading is |
| 20 |
> generally only useful to work around mail clients that do not properly add |
| 21 |
> a 'References' header (or whatever header you are supposed to use, I don't |
| 22 |
> remember, ATM). |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
About, oh, 99.9% of the world's email users wouldn't have any idea of |
| 26 |
what we're talking about. The notion that emails with different subjects |
| 27 |
would be part of the same thread would strike them as, expressing it |
| 28 |
politely, interesting. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
---- Vladimir |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Vladimir G. Ivanovic <vgivanovic@×××××××.net> |
Archives