Jose Da Silva wrote:

>> One can read the piclist in a threaded form. If you don't like a thread,
>> don't read it. It's as simple as that.
> 
> Just so you (and other readers) know, threading usually works according
> to the message id and references which are hidden in the header fields.
> Changing subjects doesn't move it to the another thread unless you have
> an email client that follows subject-line instead of thread ID.

Threading /right/ is a complex subject :)  Since many email readers
(programs) and writers (people) don't know how to treat reference headers,
the email readers (programs) need to employ some heuristics to get a
reasonable result, and it will never be 100%. 

It can't be, because it is not quite defined and something of a personal
preference that doesn't always follow a well-defined set of rules what to
do with a message like Vitaly's. He changed the subject and created a new
thread (in my reader). But he also continued a previous one, so it may be
reasonable to keep the context. 


> Seeing what happened, it appears the thread you attached to was done
> wrong by Vitality, who grabbed another topic message and entered a new
> subject (right-top portion of screen).

Whether there's really "right" or "wrong" in this case is not quite clear,
to me at least. Vitaly changed the subject; that definitely was right. He
used an email from an existing thread as basis (which appears in the
References header); this may be debatable, but since he continued /that/
discussion under a more appropriate subject, I think the POV that the
references to the messages he replied to should be there is at least not
completely without merit. 

With the way Vitaly did it, the reader (person) has the option to show the
email in its original context (as your email program does, following the
references) or show it as a new thread (as mine does, because I told it to
start a new thread when the subject changes). 

So IMO Vitaly did exactly what one should do to allow proper threading:
When starting a completely new discussion, you never respond, you always
write a new message (without references). But when continuing an existing
discussion (that's what he did), you always reply to it (to maintain the
references intact), and change the subject as appropriate. This then allows
the recipient to configure her email program to handle the threading as
desired: start or not start a new thread on subject changes within an
existing references line.

And this is the same I did with this message. I changed the subject, but
left the references headers. Without the references, the message would
float freely in thread space; with them, it can be put in context.

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist