Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Wednesday 11 June 2008, Hal Martin wrote:
[snip]
I'm sorry, but I fail to see why the above example mentioned
qualifies as Thread Hijacking. He started a new thread to pose his
question, and, if anything, was only being indirect in asking it.
No, he did not start a new thread. Other wise why does his mail have
this header;
In-Reply-To:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[snip]
Quite right, my mistake for looking into it further.
He *did* compose a new message, there is no Re: in the header and no
other content in the message.
That's not how you determine if a thread has been hijacked. The Re: is
simply a subject line and can be edited. Deleting all content from a
previous post is also not it, as thread-aware mail clients use extended
headers to do it, specifically In-Reply-To and References
Using Thunderbird it appeared to be a new thread, the same applies to
the GMail web interface. However, on closer inspection of the message
header, it does appear to be a case of thread hijacking. My mistake, and
I would retract my previous comments regarding the matter. I instead
wish to resubmit my response on thread hijacking:
Thread Hijacking is bad, don't do it.
-Hal
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
