On 21/06/11 23:29, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:21:01 -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
>> On Seg, 20 Jun 2011, wrote:
>>> [To see how it works, I've tried to include all the References in the
>>> header in this message. If Chuck or Lee complains I'll know there's an
>>> error. ]
>> This message broke the thread. It has not References or In-Reply-To
>> As someone said, your MUA should do that, not you. If it doesn't,
>> consider another MUA.
> Don't blame the mailer. This is the first e-mail I see unthreaded coming
> from Peter. Maybe he tweaked something and it was not working as expected.
>> 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
(not a lecture to you Camaleón)
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
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.
>Q: Are you sure?
>>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?