--XaUbO9McV5wPQijU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 09:16:27PM -0400, Michael G. Schabert wrote:
> >Please don't just reply to a message on the list. Your EMail program
> >included an "In-Reply-To" header, which my EMail program sorted in
> >with the one you'd grabbed.
>=20
> Which is one of the main reasons that threaded MUAs are evil :P.

Well......

> Subject-based threads are much more reliable, and you won't get=20
> screwed by people using the most convenient method available for=20
> posting to lists.

Since we're diving into the realm of opinion.... :-)

Subject-based threads are NOT more reliable in my experience. They do=20
better in this case, but there are other cases where they mess up.

Our customers at work and/or my coworkers will title EMail messages,=20
"Status", and discuss the status of this or that issue. Spamers also like=
=20
to title EMail messages, "Status". So with a subject-based EMailer, they=20
get merged. In a thread-based one, they don't. Also, my subject-bsed EMail=
=20
program uses a bit of fuzzy logic, so "Status" Spam may match up with=20
"Status of XXX" threads.

The only errors I've had where the threaded mailer merged things it=20
shouldn't have been where someone replied but started an entirely=20
different thread (as in this case) or where my mailer reveals the fact it=
=20
actually matches on only part of the message id, and so I get some false=20
merges.

I get as many false merges in a week with the subject mailer as I do in a=
=20
few months with the threaded mailer.

And is copy&paste really that hard? :-)

Take care,

Bill

--XaUbO9McV5wPQijU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFCZGNoWz+3JHUci9cRAvMhAJ9WcM9OgcPSPKGks74g028EZJ7mLwCfc6+j
k1DRgAyuyUexr5bx9UxNV3g=
=7svx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--XaUbO9McV5wPQijU--