* Joerg Arndt <arndt@jjj.de> [Sep 28. 2011 09:28]:
* ed pegg <ed@mathpuzzle.com> [Sep 27. 2011 21:22]:
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/washington-monument-inspected-for-damage-131714...
--Ed
How much effort is it to open a new thread for a new topic?
Hitting "reply" on a random email saves you about 1 second while making things annoying for everybody using a decent MUA (mine is mutt, just for the record).
It also would also be nice if you could invest your precious time to, at the very least, give one line of text apart from a bare URL.
Would that be OK?
Explanation: "Thread-hijacking" means to use the reply-function of your MUA instead of creating a new mail for starting a new thread. To display threads properly the "In-Reply-To:" line of the mail header is used. A frequent hack is to also (or even solely) use the "Subject:" line for determining which mail is part of which thread. This causes nasty problems as soon as a nontrivial amount of emails are in the folder, such as a new mail being put into a very old thread, causing one to miss it altogether, or the mail ending up in an ignored thread. The term thread-hijacking is sometimes used for wandering off with the topic, this is _not_ what I meant. (cf. http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=24041.0 ) Funny enough, the corresponding page of the English Wikipedia has been deleted (the entry "Netiquette" mentions thread-hijacking in passing without explanation). A web-page I used to point to seems to have disappeared as well, but this one comes reasonable close: http://www.tweakmyblogger.com/2010/08/thread-hijacking.html Regards, jj P.S.: I also notice that some messages that should be in some thread come without the proper "In-Reply-To:" line, causing the thread to break. I have no idea what could cause this (is there any MUA _not_ putting the "In-Reply-To:" line with replying to an email?).