[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Sources.list Question



On Wednesday 21 November 2012 10:39:46 François TOURDE wrote:
> Le 15665ième jour après Epoch,
>
> Ralf Mardorf écrivait:
> > On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 09:27 +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 21 November 2012 09:22:57 Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 09:18 +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> >> > > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 08:53:38 Chris Bannister wrote:
> >> > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:43:16PM -0500, Fred White wrote:
> >> > > > > Hello List,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It is considered (well, actually it is) rude to hijack threads on
> >> > > > mailing lists.
> >> > >
> >> > > According to my email client (KMail 1.9.10) he didn't.  What thread
> >> > > did you think that he had hijacked?
> >> > >
> >> > > Gmail also thinks that he started a new "conversation", but Gmail
> >> > > often breaks threads.
> >> >
> >> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/11/msg00909.html
> >> >
> >> > so Fred is the OP.
> >>
> >> Quite.  Exactly.  And Chris said that he hijacked the thread.
> >
> > errare humanum est
>
> No error in this case. He hijacked Crypticmofo's message id
> 50AC43A5.3010001@gmail.com as marked on my client (Gnus), and marked on
> lists.debian.org:
>
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/11/thrd2.html#00909
>
> Maybe gmail uses refs + subject to mark threads.
>
> The real problem hijacking threads is that fred question can be deleted
> because of original thread removal.
>
> Lisi, consider change or upgrade your client ;)

Obviously!!  This is the first time, to my knowledge, that it has let me down, 
but one could say once is too often. :-(  

I wonder which email client Ralf is using, since he too thought that Fred was 
the OP?  I haven't looked at Gnus.  Perhaps I should? 

Gmail doesn't even know what a thread is.  It goes purely by subject.

And yes, hijacking a thread can be very disadvantageous to the hijacker and 
very confusing for everybody else.

Sorry, Chris.
Lisi


Reply to: