On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 7:34 PM, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 05:40:10PM -0500, Chris Muller wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Craig Latta <craig at netjam.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hoi David--
> > >
> > >      Cool! But please use a new thread when starting a new thread on
> the
> > > mailing list? I kill threads when I'm no longer interested in them, and
> > > don't want to miss out on stuff which is actually new.
> > >
> >
> > Hi Craig, you've mentioned this a few times, and sometimes I wondered
> > if I was doing it right.  Could you please confirm?
> >
> > You're asking if one is replying to a email, but changing the
> > subject-matter of that conversation, then please change the
> > Subject-line of the email.  And, optionally(?), put the old subject
> > line inside parentheses prefiexed by "was:").
> >
> > The purpose of this convention is to let emails be well-formed; their
> > subjects matching the bodies and not wandering into other subjects.
> > This would be helpful for searching email later too..
> >
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> In this case, I think that caused a problem for a different reason. Out of
> convenience (and this is something I will not do again), I sometimes start
> a new mail message by "replying" to an old one, then changing to my new
> subject line. I had assumed (without ever bothering to check) that mail
> threading
> is done based on subject line, and had not noticed that the mail headers
> contain the "In-Reply-To:" information that no doubt is used for connecting
> the mail threads.
>
> So in the future I will not use "reply to" unless actually replying to
> something.
>

Surely it is the software at fault?  If you change the subject line thats
clearly starting a new thread. Something I do too.   Craig?


> Dave
>

-- 
best,
Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20140525/083f49ae/attachment.htm