| 1 |
On Wednesday 11 June 2008, Hal Martin wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
[snip] |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> I'm sorry, but I fail to see why the above example mentioned |
| 6 |
> qualifies as Thread Hijacking. He started a new thread to pose his |
| 7 |
> question, and, if anything, was only being indirect in asking it. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
No, he did not start a new thread. Other wise why does his mail have |
| 10 |
this header; |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
In-Reply-To: |
| 13 |
<49bf44f10806101229y255520fbna1a6cfd59ae56008@××××××××××.com> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
[snip] |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> He *did* compose a new message, there is no Re: in the header and no |
| 18 |
> other content in the message. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
That's not how you determine if a thread has been hijacked. The Re: is |
| 21 |
simply a subject line and can be edited. Deleting all content from a |
| 22 |
previous post is also not it, as thread-aware mail clients use extended |
| 23 |
headers to do it, specifically In-Reply-To and References |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 28 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives