| 1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 11 June 2008, Hal Martin wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> [snip] |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> I'm sorry, but I fail to see why the above example mentioned |
| 8 |
>> qualifies as Thread Hijacking. He started a new thread to pose his |
| 9 |
>> question, and, if anything, was only being indirect in asking it. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> No, he did not start a new thread. Other wise why does his mail have |
| 13 |
> this header; |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> In-Reply-To: |
| 16 |
> <49bf44f10806101229y255520fbna1a6cfd59ae56008@××××××××××.com> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> [snip] |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
Quite right, my mistake for looking into it further. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
>> He *did* compose a new message, there is no Re: in the header and no |
| 23 |
>> other content in the message. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> That's not how you determine if a thread has been hijacked. The Re: is |
| 27 |
> simply a subject line and can be edited. Deleting all content from a |
| 28 |
> previous post is also not it, as thread-aware mail clients use extended |
| 29 |
> headers to do it, specifically In-Reply-To and References |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
Using Thunderbird it appeared to be a new thread, the same applies to |
| 33 |
the GMail web interface. However, on closer inspection of the message |
| 34 |
header, it does appear to be a case of thread hijacking. My mistake, and |
| 35 |
I would retract my previous comments regarding the matter. I instead |
| 36 |
wish to resubmit my response on thread hijacking: |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Thread Hijacking is bad, don't do it. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-Hal |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives