Andrei POPESCU wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > P.S. I still think digests are less desirable because I don't see a > > way to view the discussion in a threaded view. Threaded views have > > been around for so long that I couldn't live without them. Of course > > Gmail and Outlook users don't have threaded views. But I am sure that > > if they did they wouldn't want to not have them either. > > I'm not very familiar with Gmail's interface, but Outlook definitely > does have threaded views.
As of the last time I used Outlook a couple of years ago Outlook did not have threads but had "conversations". Outlook sorted by subject line. Any message with the same subject was grouped together into a "conversation" whether it was related or not. And similarly if you had a discussion thread and changed the subject then in Outlook that started a new "conversation". Outlook "conversations" grouped by subject is a poor substitute for message threading. Are you sure it is really threads and not conversations? Gmail also only supports the same group by subject model. However for the Google Groups web forum postings they do thread those. If you use the web to post a reply to a Google Group web forum then that message stays attached to the message it was a reply. But as far as I can see all email only has subject grouping. I am currently using Gmail and Google Groups in conjuction with a school which uses it and I find it quite annoying compared to a real mailer. This grouping by subject means that I now routinely tag subject lines of generic messages such as "Dinner?" with a date code in order to make routine subjects different. Otherwise they would all get grouped into one long conversation. > Unfortunately by activating it you also have to use reverse > chronological sorting by the newest message in the thread, which is > very annoying for me. I find that upside-down sorting annoying too. Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
