30 Jul
2018
30 Jul
'18
1:54 p.m.
Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> writes:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 10:13:22 +0200, David Kastrup
wrote:
There is a difference between "start a new topic" and "continue on a
tangent". The latter is part of an already ongoing discussion that no
longer matches the subject title and references previous mails. The
former is a fresh start.
For better or worse, threaded discussions are not linear but can branch
out.
Here is how to change a subject line.
Just changing the 'subject' isn't enough, several subscribers much
likely sort by 'thread' ('In-Reply-To' and 'References' headers).
For most, if not all MUAs this means you need to
compose a new
mail. All mails invoked by a 'reply' option contain this headers, the
only way to get rid of those headers is to compose a new mail,
something that is done, when e.g. using the 'forward' option.
The point was to retain the reference while adjusting the subject line
that no longer is helpful for recognizing the topic of the current
discussion.
However, to continue proper quoting it's also need
to copy and paste
from a 'reply' mail. Some MUAs could be customized by the user, even
GUI MUAs. Claws provides 'Actions', so it is possible to simply open a
'reply' mail with an editor and to remove the unwanted headers, or to
do this by a shell script. I'm still using the copy and paste
approach.
You would.
But it does not make sense when referring to and quoting a previous mail
to sabotage the headers in a manner where the recipient's mail client
will not be able to find the referenced mail any more.
It's easy to find instructions like
<https://www.lifewire.com/change-email-thread-subject-1165427>
<https://community.ubuntu.com/t/mailing-lists/710> reflecting common
practice and the mechanisms implemented in numerous mail clients (that
know how to interpret and munge subject lines like that).
I don't see a point in diverging from widespread and accepted use that
basically all mail clients know how to deal with.
Of course there also is little point in continuing this "discussion" as
it is clear that the participants have chosen their different ways with
deliberation based on criteria that are no topic for this list.
--
David Kastrup