Clickable hyperlinks

[Deborah Swanson]

Michael Torrie wrote, on January 03, 2017 8:05 PM
>
> On 01/03/2017 08:46 PM, Deborah Swanson wrote:
> > Actually it is, or at least it doesn't happen in all email readers.
> > Mine, for instance, never breaks up threads.
>
> Mine doesn't either, which illustrates the issue. This
> message, for example appears under a long thread that started
> out life as "mentor training python Romania with
> certification" and then changed to "Cleaning up conditionals"
> and then changed to "Clickable hyperlinks." All in one
> thread. My client doesn't break them up because they all tie
> together via the message-id header.
>
> And most of us would not like our client to break a thread
> just because the subject changes. Often in long conversations
> there are twists and turns in the discussion and sometimes
> side-paths are explored, and the subject often is changed to
> reflect this.  With a truly threaded email reader (one that
> shows a tree of messages, not just chronological order), this
> works out very well.  So if a discussion has a natural
> evolution into various other topics, it is often considered
> okay to just change the subject but continue the thread.
> Other times, it's better to start a new thread.  Where that
> line is is hard to say!
>
> > I did say in the message you're replying to that I will try to
> > remember to start new threads with brand new messages.
> (Even though I
> > think pipermail's behavior is a bug, that's what many
> people read the
> > list
> > from.)
>
> Sounds good.
>
> I don't know of anyone that reads on the pipermail archive,
> except in response to web searches.  Most people use clients
> of some kind, NNTP or email.  And those that group messages
> according to message-id (most clients except for ones that
> try to be smart like Gmail web or Outlook) will show all the
> topics I mentioned before as one giant thread, which is by
> design (that's what message-id headers are for).

I suppose. Times change of course, which always suits some and not others. 
Personally, I think putting messages that have different titles all in one 
thread is a bad design, but as I've said a couple of times now I intend to 
comply with the new rules. But compliance doesn't imply agreement. I prefer the 
old system, which ordered threads by titles, but there's obviously no pleasing 
everyone on this issue.