Searching \ for '[OT]: Previous Post' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=previous+post
Search entire site for: 'Previous Post'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: Previous Post'
2005\07\14@114622 by James Humes

picon face
I posted a message tagged [PIC] about PWM and pullups last night but it hasn't bounced back to me and I've had no replies... did it actually make it, or do I need to repost it? Thanks!
James

2005\07\14@122937 by PicDude

flavicon
face
It showed up here.
Perhaps you need to add some political content for others to reply? :-)

Cheers,
-Neil.


On Thursday 14 July 2005 10:45 am, James Humes scribbled:
> I posted a message tagged [PIC] about PWM and pullups last night but it
> hasn't bounced back to me and I've had no replies... did it actually make
> it, or do I need to repost it? Thanks!
>  James


2005\07\14@123948 by Hector Martin

flavicon
face
(I'm CC'ing this just in case)

James Humes wrote:
> I posted a message tagged [PIC] about PWM and pullups last night but it
> hasn't bounced back to me and I've had no replies... did it actually make
> it, or do I need to repost it? Thanks!
>  James

Yes, it did make it fine.
--
Hector Martin (spam_OUThectorTakeThisOuTspammarcansoft.com)
Public Key: http://www.marcansoft.com/hector.asc

2005\07\15@070234 by Matthew Miller

flavicon
face
part 1 498 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset=us-asciiOn Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:45:35AM -0600, James Humes wrote:
> I posted a message tagged [PIC] about PWM and pullups last night but it
> hasn't bounced back to me and I've had no replies... did it actually make
> it, or do I need to repost it? Thanks!

James, your post did make it through, and your new thread was immediately
hijacked by people who don't know how to use their mail readers. ;^)

See the attached image. I freely admit this is a pet peeve of mine. <grin>

Matthew

part 2 9065 bytes content-type:image/png (decode)


part 3 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
(decoded 7bit)

2005\07\15@082445 by Jinx
face picon face
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:45:35AM -0600, James Humes
> wrote: I posted a message tagged [PIC] about PWM and
> pullups last night but it hasn't bounced back to me and I've
> had no replies... did it actually make it, or do I need to repost
> it? Thanks!

If you want to check, just look in the archives. Just because you
didn't get a reply PDQ doesn't mean no one saw it

> James, your post did make it through, and your new thread was
> immediately hijacked by people who don't know how to use their
> mail readers. ;^)
>
> See the attached image. I freely admit this is a pet peeve of
> mine. <grin>
>
> Matthew

Would you care to expound on how a reply of mine to the 4-20mA
lumps me in with "people who don't know how to use their mail
readers. ;^) "

I don't see any hijacking of the thread "Re: [PIC]: PWM problems
.... when it previously worked". I see one question and two on-topic
answers


2005\07\15@153613 by Matthew Miller

flavicon
face
Hi Jinx,

On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:24:44AM +1200, Jinx wrote:
>
> Would you care to expound on how a reply of mine to the 4-20mA
> lumps me in with "people who don't know how to use their mail
> readers. ;^) "
>
> I don't see any hijacking of the thread "Re: [PIC]: PWM problems
> .... when it previously worked". I see one question and two on-topic
> answers

Well, maybe "hijacking" is too strong a term or not very appropriate, but
anyway, I view my mail messages in a threaded mail reader and people who
don't use their mail reader properly screw-up the view of the threads.

What these folks seem to do is while reading a piclist message they think,
"I want to post a new message to piclist". They then hit reply, change the
subject and their message is displayed in the middle of a wholly unrelated
thread. Jinx, I'm sure you know how to use your mail reader, but look at the
image in my last message and it's pretty easy to identify two people who
don't.

Anyway, this is a peeve of mine. I just don't like reading a thread and then
having to skip around a bunch of messages just to maintain continuity while
I'm reading.

Take care.

Matthew

--
A touchstone to determine the actual worth of an "intellectual": find out
how he feels about astrology. -- Robert A. Heinlein

2005\07\15@161355 by Jose Da Silva

flavicon
face
On July 15, 2005 12:36 pm, Matthew Miller wrote:
> What these folks seem to do is while reading a piclist message they
> think, "I want to post a new message to piclist". They then hit
> reply, change the subject and their message is displayed in the
> middle of a wholly unrelated thread. Jinx, I'm sure you know how to
> use your mail reader, but look at the image in my last message and
> it's pretty easy to identify two people who don't.
>
> Anyway, this is a peeve of mine. I just don't like reading a thread
> and then having to skip around a bunch of messages just to maintain
> continuity while I'm reading.

I find them annoying too. All for the sake of creating a message that
contains the correct TO: address despite most of the underlying message
still containing the wrong mechanisms for a fresh new thread.

You either got to live with the problem (annoying), or fix the sender so
they create an email the right way (possible but unlikely over the long
run), or you got to fix the piclist so it creates a new thread (might
be interesting challenge?). Do you suppose James would be interested in
tackling that problem so that the piclist re-writes it as a fresh
thread?  <hint, hint>

2005\07\15@164735 by Denny Esterline

picon face
> You either got to live with the problem (annoying), or fix the sender so
> they create an email the right way (possible but unlikely over the long
> run), or you got to fix the piclist so it creates a new thread (might
> be interesting challenge?).


Or _you_ could find/use/create a mail program that threads by subject
line...

-Denny

2005\07\15@175821 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
> Or _you_ could find/use/create a mail program that threads by
> subject line...
>
> -Denny


The piclist archive at
http://www.piclist.com/techref/postbot.asp threads by subject.

---
James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin
.....jamesnewtonKILLspamspam@spam@piclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com



2005\07\15@180433 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Denny Esterline wrote:

>> You either got to live with the problem (annoying), or fix the sender so
>> they create an email the right way (possible but unlikely over the long
>> run), or you got to fix the piclist so it creates a new thread (might
>> be interesting challenge?).
>
> Or _you_ could find/use/create a mail program that threads by subject
> line...

... or provides that as an option (like "Start a new thread when the
subject changes within a thread").

The disadvantage with subject threading is that the threads get split up
when someone changes for example [PIC] to [OT] or changes the subject
otherwise to reflect thread progress... but I guess you can't have it all
:)

Gerhard

2005\07\15@181736 by olin piclist

face picon face
Matthew Miller wrote:
> What these folks seem to do is while reading a piclist message they
> think, "I want to post a new message to piclist". They then hit
> reply, change the subject and their message is displayed in the
> middle of a wholly unrelated thread.

But as you said, they changed the subject.  So they are starting a new
thread.  I don't think I start new threads that way, but I don't see
anything wrong with it either, at least if they completely delete the old
message content.  It's an easy way to make sure the list address is correct.

> I view my mail messages in a threaded mail reader and
> people who don't use their mail reader properly screw-up the view of
> the threads.

Sounds like the fault of your mail reader.  The piclist.com archive seems to
get it mostly right with the same information your mail read has.

I sortof remember there was a proposed standard for adding thread tracking
to the header, but it was never adopted and is widely ignored.  This is
probably because it is unworkable, as you are finding.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\07\15@193401 by Jinx

face picon face
> > reply, change the subject and their message is displayed in the
> > middle of a wholly unrelated thread.
>
> But as you said, they changed the subject.  So they are starting
> a new thread.  I don't think I start new threads that way, but I

Hmmm, I can't appreciate what you see at your end Matthew. As
Olin says above, if you're replying to a post and strip out everything
except the To:piclist and type in a new subject - isn't that a new
thread ? As I see them from here (with OE), I would have no idea
how a post was put together, whether it was done through Reply
or Create Mail. I can easily sort them into threads either way by
Subject



2005\07\15@195809 by Alex Harford

face picon face
On 7/15/05, Jinx <joecolquittspamKILLspamclear.net.nz> wrote:
> > > reply, change the subject and their message is displayed in the
> > > middle of a wholly unrelated thread.
> >
> > But as you said, they changed the subject.  So they are starting
> > a new thread.  I don't think I start new threads that way, but I
>
> Hmmm, I can't appreciate what you see at your end Matthew. As
> Olin says above, if you're replying to a post and strip out everything
> except the To:piclist and type in a new subject - isn't that a new
> thread ?

No, because your mail client preserves some information that you
probably don't see, that other mail clients (GMail, Mutt, etc) use as
hints for threading... this way you can track threads even if the
subject lines change.

Once again it's an MS thing that screws it up for other people that
follow the specs. (Sigh... it's been a long day and I'm grumpy).

Alex

2005\07\15@202658 by Dave Tweed

face
flavicon
face
Alex Harford <.....harfordKILLspamspam.....gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/15/05, Jinx <EraseMEjoecolquittspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTclear.net.nz> wrote:
> > > > reply, change the subject and their message is displayed in the
> > > > middle of a wholly unrelated thread.
> > >
> > > But as you said, they changed the subject.  So they are starting
> > > a new thread.  I don't think I start new threads that way, but I
> >
> > Hmmm, I can't appreciate what you see at your end Matthew. As
> > Olin says above, if you're replying to a post and strip out everything
> > except the To:piclist and type in a new subject - isn't that a new
> > thread ?
>
> No, because your mail client preserves some information that you
> probably don't see, that other mail clients (GMail, Mutt, etc) use as
> hints for threading... this way you can track threads even if the
> subject lines change.

Specificially, the "References:" line in the header, and possibly also the
"In-Reply-To:". If you're starting a new thread, these should be deleted,
but most mail clients don't even make you aware of their existence.

> Once again it's an MS thing that screws it up for other people that
> follow the specs. (Sigh... it's been a long day and I'm grumpy).

The References: chain is the *right* way to do threading, which allows
the Subject: line to mutate as needed as the thread progresses. Threading
based on the Subject: line alone is really lame.

-- Dave Tweed

2005\07\15@212211 by Tad Anhalt

picon face
Alex Harford wrote:
> No, because your mail client preserves some information that you
> probably don't see, that other mail clients (GMail, Mutt, etc) use as
>  hints for threading... this way you can track threads even if the
> subject lines change.

FWIW:  These are the offending(?) header lines:

Original message:
 Message-ID: <cd999d750507131931e5e0c44spamspam_OUTmail.gmail.com>

Follow up:
 In-Reply-To: <@spam@cd999d750507131931e5e0c44KILLspamspammail.gmail.com>

If these headers (and others like them) are used properly it makes it
easy to track when a thread splits for some reason or some wiseacre
decides to randomly change the subject line when replying to the same
thread/etc. (NOT trying to start a new thread, just changing the subject).

It also allows for proper nesting so you can see at a glance which
message the response was aimed at.

I suppose threading based solely on subject line sort of "works"
depending on your idea of threading, but it does severely limit the
functionality.

Example:

 Message-ID: <KILLspam1234567KILLspamspamexample.com>
 From: RemoveMEcomplainerTakeThisOuTspamexample.com
 Subject: Stop the insanity
 [...]
 Could you guys stop hitting reply-to to start a new thread and ruining
 the threading on existing ones?  Please?  Pretty please with sugar on
 top?
 [EOM]

 Message-ID: <spamBeGone987654321spamBeGonespamexample.com>
 From: TakeThisOuTno-wayEraseMEspamspam_OUTexample.com
 In-Reply-To: <RemoveME1234567spamTakeThisOuTexample.com>
 Subject:  LOL, NO WAY YOU LOOSER!  HAH, HAH [nt]
 [EOM]

 Message-ID: <76587575EraseMEspam.....example.com>
 From: EraseMEmyMailerThreadsOnSubjectspamexample.com
 In-Reply-To: <RemoveME987654321EraseMEspamEraseMEexample.com>
 Subject:   LOL, NO WAY YOU LOOSER!  HAH, HAH [nt]

 What?  Who are you replying to? Huh?  *plonk*
 [EOM]

References for the curious (terminally bored?):
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2076.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html

Tad

2005\07\15@220803 by Matthew Miller

flavicon
face
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 11:20:17AM +1200, Jinx wrote:
> > > reply, change the subject and their message is displayed in the
> > > middle of a wholly unrelated thread.
> >
> > But as you said, they changed the subject.  So they are starting
> > a new thread.  I don't think I start new threads that way, but I
>
> Hmmm, I can't appreciate what you see at your end Matthew.

That's fine. Like I said, this issue is a peeve of mine and every now and
then I try to bring this up so people are aware of it. If more people used a
threaded mail reader it might not be a problem (does Microsoft provide a
threaded view in their mail readers?).

I've adjusted the settings of my mail reader, and I've achieved the best
results possible. But, it doesn't deal well with someone abusing commonsense
when creating a brand new thread.

To recap folks: if you want to create a NEW message, please do so. Don't
REPLY-TO a message and then change the subject; that's brain-dead and poor
netiquette. Is it so difficult to copy-and-paste the piclist address?

I swear I won't mention this issue again for atleast a year! <grin>

Take care everyone!

Matthew

--
"To teach superstitions as truth is a most terrible thing."
  --  Hypatia of Alexandria (370? - 415 CE)

2005\07\15@225107 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Jinx wrote:

> I can easily sort them into threads either way by Subject

If you think about it, there's really no way you can display a thread
correctly based on subject /alone/. This only would give you the "flat"
display some message boards have, ordered by date/time. So whenever you
"thread by subject" and get a multi-level thread view, your reader does
something behind the scenes that's based on more than just the subject.

Most email readers are designed to do some heuristic guessing, based on the
fact that many email users don't use their email program in a way (or don't
use an email program that can be used in a way) that the references and/or
in-reply-to headers are correct. So they use all available indications to
generate threading, including the mentioned headers and the subject. Which
should be configurable, because sometimes you may want the subject to be
included in the heuristics, and sometimes you may not want that.

And of course, the threads as displayed by different email readers will
vary, depending on the heuristics used by the individual readers.

Gerhard

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...