[Virtualacorn-list] VirtualRPC for the Mac - MacPop beta release 1

[Jeremy Nicoll - virtualacorn]

Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim at powys.org> wrote:

> In message of 13 Sep, Jeremy Nicoll - virtualacorn
> <jn.ml.vac.83 at wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Brian Carroll <briancarroll at f2s.com> [_didn't_] wrote: 
> 
> > > For some reasons Windows is not sending the right threading
> > > information along with Aaron's replies so Reference ID (or whatever
> > > it is that MPro uses) threading does not work.  But Subject
> > > Threading does work.
> > 
> > It's not /Windows/'s fault, but the client's. 
> > 
> > There's no such thing as "Subject Threading" as far as I know; you
> > either have mails simply sorted by the Subject (and perhaps subsorted
> > by dates etc), or you have threading.  Threaded displays pay no
> > attention whatsoever to what's in a mail's subject line - that's the
> > whole point. The references and in-reply-to headers convey the
> > structure of the conversation, regardless of what people type in the
> > Subject line.
> 
> Well, first see the little snapshot of MPro's configuration at:
> 
>   http://www.tim.ukpub.net/riscos/Mpro_group_edit.jpg
> 
> I have the 'Subject Threading' option ticked there.

Ah, ok.  Well I have no idea what that does as I don't use MPro.  But I do
read newsgroups & maillists which are more or less exclusively used by
computer people, and the concept of "threading", ie structuring the display
of mail or news posts according to their embedded references & message-ids,
is well understood in a non-platform- and non-client-specific way.

The thing is, that as a properly "threaded" display must by definition
ignore the contents of subject lines, it's really hard to see what you mean
by "subject threading".

> Second, it works, it does do threading by subject.

I'm sure it does something, but what, exactly?

> (Unless you are going to regard that expression as a contradiction in
> terms and that instead the MPro designers shoud use something like
> 'Grouping by Subject'.

Well if that's what it is really doing, it'd be a better name.


> Meanwhile a lot of others will continue to call it 'threading'.)

It'll not help anyone to understand threading better if they misuse the
term.

I just googled for definitions; it looks as if RFC 2822's section 3.6.4
covers all of this.  It's quite clear that the intention of the designers
(of the structure of email messages across the whole internet) was that
"threads" have nothing to do with subject lines.  Of course not all clients
interpret the RFCs in quite the same way.  You might find section 3.6.4 of
this rfc of interest. See: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html

  
> Can we have pistols at dawn?  It would be so much less obtrusive.  

I'm not trying to duel with you, just write an informative explanation. 

-- 
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.