[Robotgroup] So, is this hijacking? (was: Thread Hijacking --Part Deux-B)

[Robert Carter]

Hi all--

I'm with Vern on the hijacking thing-- I collapse threads to save  
space in my mail app. I also use a lot of rules to draw my attention  
to especially relevant posts (hi David), but I still miss things when  
a new topic gets hidden in an old thread. So I try not to do that.

However-- something I do from time to time is, if I'm introducing a  
new line of inquiry to a thread, I'll change the subject line. Like I  
just did with this email message. Sometimes I'll include the "was:"  
line, sometimes not.

So is this bad form? I mean, I haven't really changed the topic of  
the thread, we're still on the topic of thread-hijacking and  
netiquette. I'm just steering it in a slightly different direction.

-- Robert



On Apr 23, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Vern Graner wrote:

> brooksdesign wrote:
>> So if I alter the subject line that does not start a new thread?
>> -brooks
>
> Nope. Its a hi-jack. Here's a rather long winded description I  
> authored
> for another list I'm on where people wanted to know more about it:
>
> =======================================
> Many people do not know that email is threaded by information in the
> *header* of the email.
>
> As for how email is threaded, the difference is in the *headers* of  
> the
> emails and is only apparent when viewed by a mail reader that respects
> the headers and displays them appropriately. When you hit reply, a
> proper mail handler says "this header ID is in reply to this header  
> ID"
> and then files it in the appropriate thread for the reader. For some
> background on this, you can have a look here:
>
> http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php
>
> from which this is a relevant portion:
> ------------------ CLIP -----------------
> When starting a new thread don't just reply to a message sent by  
> someone
> else and clear the subject line. Not all e-mail and news clients  
> behave
> like yours and will thread messages correctly based on the
> "Message-ID:", "In-Reply-To:" and "References:" headers embedded in  
> the
> messages. Only programs which don't comply with Internet standards  
> sort
> messages by subject and call that "threading". When you simply change
> the subject of a message, all of the threading information remains
> intact and your new "thread" simply continues at the end of the old  
> one.
> This is called thread hijacking.
>
> By doing this, you're shooting yourself in the foot twice over.  
> First of
> all, people following a thread don't want to see unrelated messages
> cropping up in the middle of it. The most complacent will just delete
> your message without reading it, others will killfile you, some having
> complained to you asking you to learn how to post. Secondly, those who
> aren't interested in the hijacked thread and who have set their  
> programs
> to ignore it won't even see your message.
>
> If you want to start a new thread then use your mailer's/newsreader's
> "New Message" function. This will start a fresh thread of your own
> without any traces of previous threads.
> ------------------ /CLIP -----------------
>
> and here:
>
> http://home.nyc.rr.com/computertaijutsu/linfaq.html
>
> from which this is a relevant portion:
> ------------------ CLIP -----------------
> Don't hijack threads. Thread hijacking is when you want to post a new
> subject, simply delete the previous subject line, put in your new
> subject, write your email and send it. If you have a totally new
> subject, then write a new email--don't just take a previous post at
> random, delete its subject, put in your own, and write an email.  
> Thread
> hijacking is a nuisance for those who set up Mutt, for example, to
> follow threads. If someone is not following thread x and deletes the
> entire thread, and you have simply changed the subject line, that  
> person
> won't see your question. For an example see this picture One poster
> simply changed the subject line from Hallo to everybody to Is
> linguistics OT at all? However, in an email client like mutt, it  
> becomes
> part of the same thread.
> If you are replying to a previous email, but feel that the subject  
> line
> should be changed, then, if you put in your new subject, add (was old
> subject.) For instance, if a discussion about distros is turning  
> into a
> discussion about burning ISO's you might, in your subject line put
> burning ISO's (Was distro discussion)
> ------------------ /CLIP -----------------
>
> In case you're interested in the "nuts and bolts" of exactly how
> threading is done, here's a quick description of the process:
>
> ------------------- CLIP ------------------
> References: Message Threading
>
> (Note that you usually won't add a References: field by hand. It's
> maintained automatically -- for instance, by Jerry's updated replcomps
> file.)
>
> USENET news articles have had a References: field for a long time. In
> email, though, it's only been popular for a few years. References:
> describes the thread (chain, series) of messages that "came before"  
> the
> one you're reading. Each message on the Internet has a unique
> identification number that's kept in the Message-ID: field.  
> References:
> is a list of the message-ids from previous messages in this thread.  
> When
> you compose a new message and send it, MH (or the MTA) adds the
> Message-ID: field. When someone replies to that message, the user's  
> MUA
> will create a References: field and copy the original message-id into
> it. If someone else replies to that reply, this References: field gets
> the previous references, plus the previous message-id. And so on.
>
> An example should make this easier to see. Let's look at a thread with
> three messages. user-a sends a message to user-b. This original  
> message
> header might have:
>
> From: user-a
> To: user-b
> Subject: something
> Message-ID: <123 at abc.edu>
>
> Now user-b replies to user-a. The reply header looks like:
>
> From: user-b
> To: user-a
> Subject: Re: something
> References: <123 at abc.edu>
> Message-ID: <246 at abc.edu>
>
> The third message in this thread is from user-a to user-b, with a copy
> to user-c. user-a also decides to change the subject:
>
> From: user-a
> To: user-b
> cc: user-c
> Subject: Another thing (was: Re: something)
> References: <123 at abc.edu> <246 at abc.edu>
> Message-ID: <789 at abc.edu>
>
> The References: field will keep getting longer as this thread goes on.
> It lets anyone find all the messages in the thread by searching for  
> the
> message-ids (with pick --message-id, for instance). By default, MH  
> 6.8.3
> doesn't handle References:, but you can add that to your replcomps  
> file.
> -------------------/CLIP ------------------
>
> Note- The above is from:
> http://www.ics.uci.edu/~mh/book/mh/hea.htm
>
> Hopefully this will give you some background on this issue and how  
> it's
> not just me being picky, it is a problem for lots of people that use
> real, threaded mail readers.
>
> :)
>
> Vern
>
> PS: I swear I'm not a looney! :)
>
> -- 
> Vern Graner CNE/CNA/SSE    | "If the network is down, then you're
> Senior Systems Engineer    | obviously incompetent so why are we
> Texas Information Services | paying you? Of course, if the network
> http://www.txis.com        | is up, then we obviously don't need
> Austin Office 512 328-8947 | you, so why are we paying you?" ©VLG
> _______________________________________________
> Robotgroup mailing list
> Robotgroup at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/robotgroup

Robert Carter
Visual Resources Collection
School of Architecture
The University of Texas at Austin
rcarter at ischool.utexas.edu