Topics

moderated Rejecting messages without a subject line #suggestion


Dave Wade
 

Folks,

If you change the subject line you probably intend to start a new thread. The problem is when you mail client changes the subject.

In the past, but perhaps not on ”groups.io”  I have seen mails that have acquired a while string of “RE: AW: RE: AW:” as mails ping pong between a user with a German language and an English language client.

Dave

 

From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io> On Behalf Of Malcolm Austen
Sent: 23 May 2020 17:31
To: main@beta.groups.io Calendar <main@beta.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [beta] Rejecting messages without a subject line #suggestion

 

On 23/05/2020 17:25:59, ro-esp <ro-esp@...> wrote:

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 05:05 PM, Malcolm Austen wrote:


> Emails are (or should be) threaded on the basis of the threading headers,
> not on the basis of the subject line.

I disagree. If you change the subjectline, it's your intention to create a new thread.

Malcolm Austen: 

 

I argue the converse. If you want to start a new topic, you should compose a new message. It should be permissible to correct a typo in the subject line without starting a new topic.

 

Malcolm.


Glenn Glazer
 

I think divining intent from semantics is a perilous business, in particular when there are multiple plausible intents.

Some people may intend to start a new thread by changing the subject line.
Some people may intend to just clean up automated reply/forward annotations.
Some people may intend to acknowledge that the subject of the conversation has mutated while preserving the chain to the earlier subject (the thread has forked).
Some people may intend to just add or remove a hashtag.

None of those are more right or more wrong than the others, just different use cases. Asserting that only one of them is what all writers have in mind strikes me as not very universal.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est

Virus-free. www.avast.com


 

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 10:26 AM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
I think divining intent from semantics is a perilous business, in particular when there are multiple plausible intents.
Divining intent is a perilous matter
When multiple plausible meanings exist.
Some people may just mean to clean up their chatter
But just by pure chance they make others quite pissed.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Glenn Glazer
 

On 5/24/2020 14:13, J_Catlady wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 10:26 AM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
I think divining intent from semantics is a perilous business, in particular when there are multiple plausible intents.
Divining intent is a perilous matter
When multiple plausible meanings exist.
Some people may just mean to clean up their chatter
But just by pure chance they make others quite pissed.

--
J

Are you riffing T.S. Eliot's The Naming of Cats? If so, I approve.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est

Virus-free. www.avast.com


 

Yes! Was definitely riffing on him. You got it! 😻


On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 2:31 PM Glenn Glazer <glenn.glazer@...> wrote:
On 5/24/2020 14:13, J_Catlady wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 10:26 AM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
I think divining intent from semantics is a perilous business, in particular when there are multiple plausible intents.
Divining intent is a perilous matter
When multiple plausible meanings exist.
Some people may just mean to clean up their chatter
But just by pure chance they make others quite pissed.

--
J

Are you riffing T.S. Eliot's The Naming of Cats? If so, I approve.

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est

Virus-free. www.avast.com


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Bart Fried
 

Of course Subjects should be required. Especially in a group or forum ... otherwise how does one know if they are opening a Topcical or OFF TOPIC item? There are enough other time-sucks in the world. This is an easy one to fix.

Bart Fried


 

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 09:24 AM, Bart Fried wrote:
Subjects should be required. Especially in a group or forum
As they are. The suggestion in this thread has nothing to do with group messages. It is about messages going only to the owner/moderators of a group. Group members don't even receive such messages, so there's no issue with sending a subject-less email blast; and on top of that, messages to owners may come from non-group members so should not be subject to group restrictions or requirements - there's no such agreement or contract yet with the sender.

My group goes beyond the already existing groups.io requirement that group messages have subjects, and even requires that the subject contain the cat's name and other data. Messages coming from possible non-members with questions about the group, and going only to group owners, are a horse of a different hue and I would not want to bounce them if they simply lack a subject line.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu