On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:49:05 +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 21/06/11 23:29, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:21:01 -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
>>> But at least you did not reply to a digest.
>> Sure. I'd say digests are for reading more than replying.
> It's not hard to reply to a digest - it's just requires some thought and
> a little editing.
> It's certainly no excuse to clutter the list with useless subject and
> irrelevant content.
> (not a lecture to you Camaleón)
But if digest e-mails do not contain every e-mail (as mime attachment),
it turns hard to follow and reply. Yes, you can go to the mailing archive
and use the buttons in there but that's breaks things a lot.
> In Iceweasel:-
> Select the entire post being replied to Click on reply to list
> Copy the post title into the subject line of the reply If the it's not
> already prefaced with "Re: " make it so Edit the date, posters email and
> the formatting information.
> It's hard to follow lazy replies to digest posts. If the person wishing
> to post finds that "too hard" they've no right to expect others to carry
> the weight.
Yes, I understand your POV (and I also expressed my concerns with that)
but I thought that digest e-mails contained more than a simple link to
the referenced thread/post. If they don't, I still keep the idea that
they're more focused to reading than replying.
> I did use a script and Tonequilla to automatically re-edit replies to
> digest posts (another list) - but the complexities of dealing with
> bastardised subject lines by people forking threads exceeded the ten
> minutes I'm prepared to spend on a script.
Yep, and is not only about unthreaded messages (or changed subjects) but
replying to several of them in just one post. That makes conversations
very hard to follow by others mailing list users.
- Re: Threading
- From: Scott Ferguson <firstname.lastname@example.org>