[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2004/11/10]
OK OK OK. Let's not get sidetracked here. I was _not_ proposing a solution. Fact is, I wasn't even aware of In-Reply-To until 5 minutes ago. My point is that the average joe isn't _ever_ going to be aware of such a thing, and that it's a waste of time beating users (i.e. me) up over it. So, now I know about In-Reply-To. let's get back to Siesta. David Cantrell wrote: > On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 09:20:44AM -0800, Bowen Dwelle wrote: > >>Richard Clamp wrote: >> >>>If you try and start another thread by finding an old message and >>>hitting reply I'm going to hunt you down and slap you. >> >>As a programmer, I realize the usefulness of In-Reply-To, but replying >>to an existing message also happens to be my most common way of replying >>to a list, new topic or old. I expect that I'm not by any means the only >>person who does that. >> >>How would you expect a normal user to know (or care) that the system >>doesn't know how to deal with that behavior? > > > Please define how it should "know how to deal with that behaviour". > Your proposed solution will need to cope with people deliberately > changing the Subject while staying in the same thread, like what I've > just done. > > >>I'm sure this has already been discussed a million times in other >>forums, but shouldn't Subject supersede In-Reply-To for threading? > > > No. In-Reply-To indicates that the message is, errm, In Reply To > another. If you wish it to not be in reply to another, don't send an > In-Reply-To header. >
Generated at 14:00 on 11 Nov 2004 by mariachi 0.52