Carl Peterson <carlopeter...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:04 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> >> I'm certain Gmail will also be able to figure out the mail you are >> replying to without referring to any header at all as long as any Gmail >> user has not yet deleted it (and probably even afterwards). But for a >> normal mail server/client setup not relying on a universal freely >> associating data kraken on the server end, one needs to have information >> as specific as a Message Id in order to do reliable queries. > > > My understanding is that Gmail does not cross reference messages from > multiple accounts to figure out threading.
I was being facetious here. I'm certain they don't want to point out the full amount of referencing/indexing/correlation they are doing. But they are not getting billions of advertising dollars for nothing. > I'll also issue a mea culpa of my own. When you mentioned threading, I > was not thinking in the sense of a tree. I was only considering the > idea of a "conversation," understanding which messages belong > together. To my knowledge, Gmail does not attempt to figure out who is > replying to whom, but uses a chronological sequencing. Not sure about that. The information usually is available in the headers, and as far as I can tell, Gmail does preserve and maintain it as well. So unless someone "breaks the chain", it would seem like a poor choice not to actually use it. >> Don't use "Reply to sender" if you don't want to reply to the sender. > > > (1) 99% of the time, if I'm replying to a message, I'm intending to > reply to the list. Defaults are usually selected to in some way > minimize effort, which brings me to (2), I'm lazy. Reply all requires > extra mouse-clicks. Poor choice of user interface then. >> > As a matter of consistency, I think both the individual messages >> > and the digest should reply to the list, or neither. >> >> Do you mean to imply that the digest _does_ add an explicit Reply-To: >> header and it goes to the list? That would indeed be on the less >> than sane side. > > I have no idea what the digest does or doesn't do. I am replying to > your prior statement, "Maybe the reply-to header of the digest should > not even point to the list?" As Tim pointed out, the non-digest > messages do not and your proposal would be logically consistent with > that. Not really. I was suggesting _adding_ a Reply-To header, but one that does not go back to the list. > I am simply stating a preference for the reply-to of both to do so. As I said, replies from a digest rarely make sense because of breaking the message threading. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
