\begin{sotto voce}
I can't believe I'm jumping into a thread like this.
\end{sotto voce}
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 at 10:23am, Les Mikesell wrote
> On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 09:52, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
>>> Not all mail/news readers track exclusevly via Message-ID,
>>> References and In-Reply-To headers.
>>
>> So in other words, they decide to snub decades of Internet
>> standards.
>
> They are realistic about people's use of email. They hit
> reply/reply-all to reply to the sender/group, not necessarily
> to the content of the previous message, and they change
> the subject line when it isn't relevant and they are changing
Ah, so we ignore established standards based on users' stupidity. Good
idea.
> the topic. Please resume this argument when you have taught
> the rest of the world the value of the headers they can't
Threading that *works* is the value that users would notice.
> see and some way to get the address list from a message
> without making an irrelevant In-Repy-To:.
Yeah, because address books are *so* hard to use.
I'm sorry, but making decisions based on Stupid User Tricks is about the
worst policy I can imagine. That way lies madness.
--
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University
