Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 01:48 pm, ro-esp wrote:
If we were using header threading as "ironclad,"What do you mean by "ironclad" here?
By "ironclad" I mean that if the content is available in the message header to thread into an existing thread, that would take precedence over all else, including a modified subject.
That kind of threading is indeed used and really doesn't take that much getting used to. Users figure out very quickly (and, of course, are also told) that if they want to create a new thread they must create a brand new message in their e-mail client in order to do so. This is really no different than that happens in the web interface, as one must hit "New Topic" to create a new topic.
I am going to intentionally add "BV" to the end of the subject on this message itself. I believe I recall having done something like this accidentally at one point using the web interface, as I am now, and that it does not cause a new thread to be created, but this message will simply be the next in the series even with a changed title.
If that turns out not to be the case then at least the behavior is consistent as far as what happens if any subject change is made and I apologize in advance for thread splitting. It is perfectly OK to merge this back into the original thread if it doesn't stay there on its own.
I've used a number of e-mail clients over the years that completely ignored the subject of a message in terms of threading a conversation if the header information indicated it was in reply to a message in an existing conversation thread. It's really a matter of what choice you want your threading algorithm to make.
I have made mistakes, but have never made the mistake of claiming I never made one.
~ James G. Bennet