thomas@utah-gr.UUCP (Spencer W. Thomas) (07/02/85)
Why do people generate subject lines like the above when writing
followups? Today in net.cooks I saw one that said
Re: hot pepper oil (really caramel sauce)
The one subject has absolutely nothing to do with the other, and hot
pepper oil was mentioned nowhere in the article. Does the news software
make it so hard to change the subject line on a followup? (Granted,
this one shouldn't have been a followup anyway.) Or is it that posting
a new message via the 'f' key is just easier than using postnews? Is
there something that can be done about this (of course not, it's an
anarchy -- you can't force *anyone* to do *anything*!)? If there is a
fault in the news software, maybe this could be fixed. (I don't know, I
use rn now, which allows me complete control over my header lines.)
--
=Spencer ({ihnp4,decvax}!utah-cs!thomas, thomas@utah-cs.ARPA)
"You don't get to choose how you're going to die. Or when.
You can only decide how you're going to live." Joan Baezjerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) (07/04/85)
> Why do people generate subject lines like the above when writing > followups? Today in net.cooks I saw one that said > Re: hot pepper oil (really caramel sauce) > =Spencer ({ihnp4,decvax}!utah-cs!thomas, thomas@utah-cs.ARPA) I can only say why I sometimes do it. Many times a followup article refers to the original article but not the original subject. This leaves me with two options. 1. Use a new subject that describes the current discussion. 2. Use the old subject. The problem with (1) is that readers who were following the old discussion may not realize that this is a followup to it. The problem with (2) is that readers can not tell from the old subject whether the article contains something they might be interested in. So I compromise and combine the old and new. It is not a problem of not being able to control the subject line. If it was then I would not have been able to add the (Really ...". Maybe we need a new header ala: Subject: caramel sauce Originally: hot pepper oil References: <1495@utah-gr.UUCP> Actually the use of "Subject" is a hangover from the days when this all worked via mail. A "Title" would be more appropriate. Jerry Aguirre @ Olivetti ATC {hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!jerry
liberte@uiucdcs.Uiuc.ARPA (07/06/85)
One thing to be aware of in creating such long subjects is that `notes` chops off everything past 35 characters. So better to put the real subject early and add something like "Ex: hot pepper oil" after that. Dan LaLiberte liberte@uiucdcs.Uiuc.ARPA ihnp4!uiucdcs!liberte
geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (07/07/85)
In article <487@oliveb.UUCP> jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) writes: >> Why do people generate subject lines like the above when writing >> followups? >[Jerry then points out that he does it so that people who have been following >the original discussion will know to read the article.] Another reason is newsreaders like 'rn', which will only follow a thread of discussion based on the "Subject:" lines. (Aside to Larry Wall -- how difficult would it be to run the thread based on the partial ordering provided by the "References:" line?) >Maybe we need a new header ala: > Subject: caramel sauce > Originally: hot pepper oil > References: <1495@utah-gr.UUCP> An excellent idea! Rn and such readers could then follow the discussion thread properly. How about "Original-Subject:", though? -- Geoff Kuenning ...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff
guy@sun.uucp (Guy Harris) (07/08/85)
> Why do people generate subject lines like the above when writing > followups? Today in net.cooks I saw one that said > Re: hot pepper oil (really caramel sauce) > > The one subject has absolutely nothing to do with the other, and hot > pepper oil was mentioned nowhere in the article. Does the news software > make it so hard to change the subject line on a followup? No; in fact, the person who added the "(really caramel sauce)" did change the subject line. I presume they left the original junk in there because they thought it would tie it in better with the original article. If I post a followup to an article which diverges from the topic of the original article, I just replace the subject line in its entirety; if people really want a pointer back to the original article, they can use the "References:" line. Guy Harris
sunil@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Sunil Trivedi) (07/09/85)
From: geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) Message-ID: <114@desint.UUCP> > In article <487@oliveb.UUCP> jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) writes: > >Maybe we need a new header ala: > > Subject: caramel sauce > > Originally: hot pepper oil > An excellent idea! Rn and such readers could then follow the discussion > thread properly. How about "Original-Subject:", though? I edit the Subject line and add a Keywords line. Does rn scan that line? While we're into new names, how about "Ref-Subject:" instead? Sunil Trivedi sunil@ut-ngp.ARPA ...!ut-sally!ut-ngp!sunil "Beam me up fast Scotty - there's no toilet paper down here!"