[X4U] Re: hijacking threads

[Doug McNutt]

At 13:30 -0800 1/19/07, nk wrote:
><x-flowed>I hate to be a grumpy gus, but if you post to the list, could you please make a NEW message, rather than by opening a post and hitting "reply?"

For a bit of clarification:

At 13:30 -0800 1/19/07, nk also included these headers:
>In-Reply-To: <6E0F93B2-421E-41FC-936A-8BBD7C224063 at mac.com>
>References: <cf4239a3a677dfe8f96b394b441e507d at comcast.net>
>	<515A4AB4-10D2-4E5A-9111-26B194CED62A at earthlink.net>
>	<6E0F93B2-421E-41FC-936A-8BBD7C224063 at mac.com>
>Message-Id: <13fd79f6e16d5556fd2c34ffb9731619 at comcast.net>

Your mail client probably does that too even if it doesn't have a capability for organizing relative to the messageID's and their references. It would really be much better if everyone used the references but some important mail clients have their own ideas about how the universe should be organized.

At 16:33 -0600 1/19/07, Linda wrote:
>Someone had better explain Threads versus displaying messages by Subject -- the latter seems to be what more people do than by Threads (in fact, I don't know how to group by Thread in my chosen email reader, so I group by Subject, which ignores Threads).

At 16:33 -0600 1/19/07, Linda wrote, including these headers:
>Message-ID: <C1D6A362.E0727%XPressoBean at mac.com>
>Thread-Topic: [X4U] Re: hijacking threads
>Thread-Index: Acc8GdzSGzXhT6gNEduy3wAKlb3ywA==
>In-Reply-To: <20070119222529.1611387305 at smtp.mac.com>
>User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620

Note the last line and think about those "important mail clients" of which I spoke. RFC2822 and its cousins make interesting reading if you're really interested in the proper way to do things.

-- 
-->  The greenhouse effect due to water vapor has never been fully modeled and weather forecasting remains irreducibly complex. It is clear that global warming is the act of an Intelligent Designer. <--