Re: The List Standard
> First: as I understand your guideline I am not to use the reply key but
> simply address my reply back to the list and it will be automatically
> added to the descending list.
Most email clients have 3 options : Reply, Reply to All, Reply to List. You
should use Reply to List when replying to list. A list of email clients
which support "Reply to List" feature can be found at
http://wiki.debian.org/ReplyToListEmailClients
> But have you not in your own email broken
> the chain of information because all I get when I read your email is to
> see your one extraction and I don't know from that who said what or even
> the initial subject content.
I do not know what you mean by "extraction", but usually the previous
emails, discussions are a click away in your email client. The thread
structure lets you see "which email is reply to which email etc.,". It is
customary to snip away irrelevant parts of the previous message and keep
the parts that you are replying to.
> Not every one has threads.
If you want to read this mailing list, any attempt to resist threads is
futile. Try to get a mail client with threads.
> In a thread before
> yours this statement was made: ' AFAIK Thunderbird can thread even if the
> subject is changed. (It uses the 'In-Reply-To:' header)"
> This person seems to imply that normally the subject is the key to
> establishing the descending threads. And if Thunderbird for example
> utilizes the REPLY TO header then that is at odds with what you seem to be
> saying in this guideline. So I am confused on this matter.
Most email clients can thread without any problem even if the subject is
changed. Some email clients cannot preserve threads if the subject is
changed. I was being considerate about the second category.
> Second: Also, when one person removes content they think is irrelevant but
> the original author might think otherwise then how does one find that
> original information?
>
Usually all that information (previous emails, previous threads etc.,) is
one click away in a good email client.
> Note that I have 3 objections I want to discuss in more detail if that is
> okay with you.
I am quite happy that you raised the issues. It helps me improve that
document in the future.
raju
--
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/kk288/
http://malayamaarutham.blogspot.com/
Reply to: