Mailing List Archive

Hi, Bryan:

0)    Thank you so much for coming to the rescue!!!

1)    Basically trained as a radio frequency hardware engineer, I am
only capable of using software as tools necessary for my work. For
eMail, I have been using ThunderBird ever since its beginning. With my
own time-stamping Subject line discipline, I never needed its threading
function. When I received complaints last year, I experimented threading
on it and found that it was doing just fine. Whether I prefixed or
suffixed the timestamps to the Subject line could not break it. I
requested counter examples from those who were having difficulties with
my MSGs, but received none. Frustrated but not able to do anything, I
went back to continue my EzIP work, leaving this subject in the back
burner of my mind. This time around, the problem popped up again in the
midst of large number of MSG exchanges. I am so relieved that you
presented the threading on the NANOG eMail server that mirrors what I
saw on my own PC. So, we now have a common reference for everyone to
look at this phenomenon. (Why no one else knew about this facility?)

2)    From the Wikipedia explanation of RFC5822, I as a ThunderBird
user, really have nothing to do with the Message-ID that it puts on my
MSGs nor how does it make use of such to display the threads. And, my
Subject line style can't affect it either. So, why some colleagues are
having difficulties with just my eMails, but seemly not from others?
Could this be caused by the large number of MSGs within a short period
of time that amplified this issue? From another feedback, I realized
that some colleagues may be using plain text text editors or alike for
eMail, because they could not see color nor italic emphasizing of my
text. Could such be related to this issue?

I would appreciate very much if you could advance my education with some
explanations after perhaps discussions with those offended by my MSGs.


Regards,


Abe (2024-01-13 17:37)





> On 1/12/24 3:04 PM, Mu wrote:
>> Would it be possible for you to reply in-thread, rather than creating
>> a new thread with a new subject line every time you reply to someone?
>>
>> Trying to follow the conversation becomes very difficult for no reason.
>
> Threading has nothing to do with subject lines.  RFC822 (now 5822)
> specifies how this works based on message ID.  This thread displays
> fine in threaded mode in my MUA and in the archives.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversation_threading
> https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2024-January/thread.html
>
> If people could please reply to threads properly, inline and trimming
> non relevant text, it would make following discussion much easier.
>


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

Things you have to remember. Not everyone uses thunderbird. Not every mail client threads like thunderbird.
— Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 13, 2024, at 17:39, Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> wrote:

? Hi, Bryan:
0) Thank you so much for coming to the rescue!!!

1) Basically trained as a radio frequency hardware engineer, I am only capable of using software as tools necessary for my work. For eMail, I have been using ThunderBird ever since its beginning. With my own time-stamping Subject line discipline, I never needed its threading function. When I received complaints last year, I experimented threading on it and found that it was doing just fine. Whether I prefixed or suffixed the timestamps to the Subject line could not break it. I requested counter examples from those who were having difficulties with my MSGs, but received none. Frustrated but not able to do anything, I went back to continue my EzIP work, leaving this subject in the back burner of my mind. This time around, the problem popped up again in the midst of large number of MSG exchanges. I am so relieved that you presented the threading on the NANOG eMail server that mirrors what I saw on my own PC. So, we now have a common reference for everyone to look at this phenomenon. (Why no one else knew about this facility?)

2) From the Wikipedia explanation of RFC5822, I as a ThunderBird user, really have nothing to do with the Message-ID that it puts on my MSGs nor how does it make use of such to display the threads. And, my Subject line style can't affect it either. So, why some colleagues are having difficulties with just my eMails, but seemly not from others? Could this be caused by the large number of MSGs within a short period of time that amplified this issue? From another feedback, I realized that some colleagues may be using plain text text editors or alike for eMail, because they could not see color nor italic emphasizing of my text. Could such be related to this issue?

I would appreciate very much if you could advance my education with some explanations after perhaps discussions with those offended by my MSGs.



Regards,

Abe (2024-01-13 17:37)

On 1/12/24 3:04 PM, Mu wrote:

Would it be possible for you to reply in-thread, rather than creating a new thread with a new subject line every time you reply to someone?

Trying to follow the conversation becomes very difficult for no reason.

Threading has nothing to do with subject lines. RFC822 (now 5822) specifies how this works based on message ID. This thread displays fine in threaded mode in my MUA and in the archives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversation_threading"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversation_threading
https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2024-January/thread.html"]https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2024-January/thread.html

If people could please reply to threads properly, inline and trimming non relevant text, it would make following discussion much easier.

https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"]Virus-free.https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"]www.avast.com

On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 12:58?PM Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net> wrote:
> On 1/12/24 3:04 PM, Mu wrote:
> > Would it be possible for you to reply in-thread, rather than creating a new thread with a new subject line every time you reply to someone?
> >
> > Trying to follow the conversation becomes very difficult for no reason.
>
> Threading has nothing to do with subject lines. RFC822 (now 5822) specifies
> how this works based on message ID. This thread displays fine in threaded
> mode in my MUA and in the archives.

Hi Bryan,

Respectfully, your MUA is not the only MUA. Others work differently.

GMail, for example, follows the message IDs as you say but assumes
that if you change the subject line in your reply (more than adding
"Re:") then you intend to start a new thread from that point in the
discussion. It groups messages accordingly.

This is not an unreasonable expectation: if you merely want to
continue the current conversation without going off on a new tangent
then there's no need for a different subject line.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



--
William Herrin
bill@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

On 1/14/24 1:01 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> Respectfully, your MUA is not the only MUA. Others work differently.

Bill, I use multiple MUA's, among them Thunderbird, mutt, kmail and even the
zimbra web interface. All follow and implement RFC5822 as it pertains to
threading.

Note, threading works fine in the list archives too, but only displays two
levels deep.

> GMail, for example, follows the message IDs as you say but assumes
> that if you change the subject line in your reply (more than adding
> "Re:") then you intend to start a new thread from that point in the
> discussion. It groups messages accordingly.

Gmail is therefore in violation of the RFC5822. It's quite clear how it
should work per the RFC appendix.

> This is not an unreasonable expectation: if you merely want to
> continue the current conversation without going off on a new tangent
> then there's no need for a different subject line.

I think it's quite unreasonable to expect others to compensate for an MUA
which doesn't implement 25+ year old standards properly.
--
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net

Hi, Bryan:

1)    "  ...  Gmail is therefore in violation of the RFC5822. ... I
think it's quite unreasonable to expect others to compensate for an MUA
which doesn't implement 25+ year old standards properly. ...  ":

    I am so glad that you decided to come out to be a well-informed
referee. For more than one year, I have been accused of breaking the
eMail etiquette established by a standard, yet never identified. It
seriously distracted our attention from the topic of essence. You now
have demonstrated that the reverse appears to be the case. What a big
surprise!

2)    If we have trouble to keep our communication tool's framework
solid, we will be spending needless extra resources on technical
discussions. This is not productive.

3)    Obviously, I am just barely able to read the exchanges on this
thread due to so many terminologies that I have never heard of. I shall
remain silent on this thread from now on, awaiting for you to lead us
out of this puzzlement.

Sincerely and Best Regards,


Abe (2024-01-14 08:11 EST)



On 2024-01-14 03:53, Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 1/14/24 1:01 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Respectfully, your MUA is not the only MUA. Others work differently.
> Bill, I use multiple MUA's, among them Thunderbird, mutt, kmail and even the
> zimbra web interface. All follow and implement RFC5822 as it pertains to
> threading.
>
> Note, threading works fine in the list archives too, but only displays two
> levels deep.
>
>> GMail, for example, follows the message IDs as you say but assumes
>> that if you change the subject line in your reply (more than adding
>> "Re:") then you intend to start a new thread from that point in the
>> discussion. It groups messages accordingly.
> Gmail is therefore in violation of the RFC5822. It's quite clear how it
> should work per the RFC appendix.
>
>> This is not an unreasonable expectation: if you merely want to
>> continue the current conversation without going off on a new tangent
>> then there's no need for a different subject line.
> I think it's quite unreasonable to expect others to compensate for an MUA
> which doesn't implement 25+ year old standards properly.



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

> I am so glad that you decided to come out to be a well-informed referee. For more than one year, I have been accused of breaking the eMail etiquette established by a standard, yet never identified. It seriously distracted our attention from the topic of essence. You now have demonstrated that the reverse appears to be the case. What a big surprise!

Even if it doesn’t break the threading RFCs, I am at a loss looking for a reason why the subject line of a thread should be a/ arbitrarily changed without a correlated change in subject, b/ extended to a point where it takes 1/3rd of the screen of my iPhone and doesn’t fit in the table view in my Thunderbird and c/ in a list with thousands of individuals be changed to include some sort of timestamp specific to one of them (202401102221.AYC).

Please, think at scale. If every single one of us had to randomly change subject at every response or add their own timestamp (why even?) 202401151356.BG this would quickly get out of hand.

I don’t think we need to be in specific breach of an RFC to ask an individual which is clearly acting off the standard ML practice to please stop, no?

On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 12:58?PM Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net <mailto:Bryan@bryanfields.net>> wrote:
> On 1/12/24 3:04 PM, Mu wrote:
>> Would it be possible for you to reply in-thread, rather than creating a new thread with a new subject line every time you reply to someone?
>>
>> Trying to follow the conversation becomes very difficult for no reason.
>
> Threading has nothing to do with subject lines. RFC822 (now 5822) specifies
> how this works based on message ID. This thread displays fine in threaded
> mode in my MUA and in the archives.

Bryan,

My personal use of email agents involves ordering incoming messages by date sent. Many others order their inbox by date received. I don't use MUA ordering by thread or conversation because I must use MUAs on many diverse systems. So for many decades, I have continued to use my own mental programming to sort and group messages by subject. This, by the way, is akin to aural conversations between persons where announcing a change of subject is expected to be followed by a new topic.

For those of us on OCD, ADD, or Autism spectrums, multiple subjects lines cause cognitive dissonance - sometimes damaging comprehension of the continuing thread (conversation). I don't claim it violates the ADA, but it should especially when willfully continued after requests for amended behavior. Lazarus Long would probably express this more cogently.

In the interest of polite conversation,
-
James R. Cutler
james.cutler@consultant.com

>
> Gmail is therefore in violation of the RFC5822. It's quite clear how it
> should work per the RFC appendix.
>

Well, no. Asterisks added for emphasis.

This specification is intended as a definition of what message
> content format is to be passed between systems. Though some message
> systems locally store messages in this format (which eliminates the
> need for translation between formats) and others use formats that
> differ from the one specified in this specification, local storage is
> outside of the scope of this specification.
>
> Note: This specification is not intended to dictate the internal
> formats used by sites, the specific message system features that
> they are expected to support, *** or any of the characteristics of
> user interface programs that create or read messages. *** In
> addition, this document does not specify an encoding of the
> characters for either transport or storage; that is, it does not
> specify the number of bits used or how those bits are specifically
> transferred over the wire or stored on disk.
>
> 5822 defines the structure and syntax of the data. Not how mail agents
should work with it.



On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 3:55?AM Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net> wrote:

> On 1/14/24 1:01 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> > Respectfully, your MUA is not the only MUA. Others work differently.
>
> Bill, I use multiple MUA's, among them Thunderbird, mutt, kmail and even
> the
> zimbra web interface. All follow and implement RFC5822 as it pertains to
> threading.
>
> Note, threading works fine in the list archives too, but only displays two
> levels deep.
>
> > GMail, for example, follows the message IDs as you say but assumes
> > that if you change the subject line in your reply (more than adding
> > "Re:") then you intend to start a new thread from that point in the
> > discussion. It groups messages accordingly.
>
> Gmail is therefore in violation of the RFC5822. It's quite clear how it
> should work per the RFC appendix.
>
> > This is not an unreasonable expectation: if you merely want to
> > continue the current conversation without going off on a new tangent
> > then there's no need for a different subject line.
>
> I think it's quite unreasonable to expect others to compensate for an MUA
> which doesn't implement 25+ year old standards properly.
> --
> Bryan Fields
>
> 727-409-1194 - Voice
> http://bryanfields.net
>

Bryan:

> Gmail is therefore in violation of the RFC5822. It's quite clear how it
should work per the RFC appendix.

Actually, no it's not. RFC5322 reads: "This specification is not intended
to dictate ... any of the characteristics of user interface programs that
create or read messages".

5822 has not been issued, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5822.

Abraham:

> For more than one year, I have been accused of breaking the eMail
etiquette established by a standard, yet identified.

If multiple people have been asking you for over a year to not change
subject headings on emails, does this not indicate a bigger issue regarding
your mailing list etiquette? The fact that it continues indicates a
complete disregard. I cannot think of one technical reason to include a
manual timestamp in a subject line (such as your 202401102221.AYC).

> If we have trouble to keep our communication tool's framework solid, we
will be spending needless extra resources on technical discussions. This is
not productive.

One person changing the subject line of a mailing list thread every few
emails for their own benefit, and no one else, is not productive. There is
nothing wrong with MUAs currently in use. A user adapts to the MUA, not the
other way around.

> Obviously, I am just barely able to read the exchanges on this thread due
to so many terminologies that I have never heard of.

If a number of people on a mailing list were using terminologies that I
didn't understand, I would:
1. Listen to and understand what they are saying.
2. Contact them off-list and ask for clarification.
3. Heed their advice.

Regards,
Christopher Hawker

On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 00:12, Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> wrote:

> Hi, Bryan:
>
> 1) " ... Gmail is therefore in violation of the RFC5822. ... I
> think it's quite unreasonable to expect others to compensate for an MUA which
> doesn't implement 25+ year old standards properly. ... ":
>
> I am so glad that you decided to come out to be a well-informed
> referee. For more than one year, I have been accused of breaking the eMail
> etiquette established by a standard, yet never identified. It seriously
> distracted our attention from the topic of essence. You now have
> demonstrated that the reverse appears to be the case. What a big surprise!
>
> 2) If we have trouble to keep our communication tool's framework solid,
> we will be spending needless extra resources on technical discussions. This
> is not productive.
>
> 3) Obviously, I am just barely able to read the exchanges on this
> thread due to so many terminologies that I have never heard of. I shall
> remain silent on this thread from now on, awaiting for you to lead us out
> of this puzzlement.
>
> Sincerely and Best Regards,
>
>
> Abe (2024-01-14 08:11 EST)
>
>
>
> On 2024-01-14 03:53, Bryan Fields wrote:
>
> On 1/14/24 1:01 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> Respectfully, your MUA is not the only MUA. Others work differently.
>
> Bill, I use multiple MUA's, among them Thunderbird, mutt, kmail and even the
> zimbra web interface. All follow and implement RFC5822 as it pertains to
> threading.
>
> Note, threading works fine in the list archives too, but only displays two
> levels deep.
>
>
> GMail, for example, follows the message IDs as you say but assumes
> that if you change the subject line in your reply (more than adding
> "Re:") then you intend to start a new thread from that point in the
> discussion. It groups messages accordingly.
>
> Gmail is therefore in violation of the RFC5822. It's quite clear how it
> should work per the RFC appendix.
>
>
> This is not an unreasonable expectation: if you merely want to
> continue the current conversation without going off on a new tangent
> then there's no need for a different subject line.
>
> I think it's quite unreasonable to expect others to compensate for an MUA
> which doesn't implement 25+ year old standards properly.
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> Virus-free.www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> <#m_4325909844379148972_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen@avinta.com>

> Hi, Bryan:

[ ... ]

> 2)    From the Wikipedia explanation of RFC5822, I as a ThunderBird
> user, really have nothing to do with the Message-ID that it puts on my
> MSGs nor how does it make use of such to display the threads. And, my
> Subject line style can't affect it either. So, why some colleagues are
> having difficulties with just my eMails, but seemly not from others?
> Could this be caused by the large number of MSGs within a short period
> of time that amplified this issue? From another feedback, I realized
> that some colleagues may be using plain text text editors or alike for
> eMail, because they could not see color nor italic emphasizing of my
> text. Could such be related to this issue?

Well, when Bryan says:
>> Threading has nothing to do with subject lines.  RFC822 (now 5822)
>> specifies how this works based on message ID.  This thread displays
>> fine in threaded mode in my MUA and in the archives.

he's not wrong... but he fails to take into account that there are still
email clients which don't thread based on *that*, as they should; they
make up cock-a-mamie rules about the contents of the Subject line, and
use those to thread with, and those clients *will* come apart if you make
'gratuitous' edits to it.

Well, at least, this *has been* a running problem for 20 or 30 years; I don't
have my fingers on a list of which clients get it right and which wrong, and
which might have gotten religion over the years on the topic. 5322 isn't my
primary RFC. :-)

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274

----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us>

> Respectfully, your MUA is not the only MUA. Others work differently.
>
> GMail, for example, follows the message IDs as you say but assumes
> that if you change the subject line in your reply (more than adding
> "Re:") then you intend to start a new thread from that point in the
> discussion. It groups messages accordingly.
>
> This is not an unreasonable expectation: if you merely want to
> continue the current conversation without going off on a new tangent
> then there's no need for a different subject line.

Maybe it's not.

Looking at threads in NANOGs piper, though, it's easy to see threads where
the Subject line evolves to follow the conversation, without dropping people
who still want to participate in it.

The fact that the "(was: old subject)" convention continues in good service
to this day, *even though no mailer does that for you* (so far as I'm aware)
suggests that people will put in the effort, to me at least.

The number of times when I've consciously wanted to break a reply chain -- and
usually was not provided with the facility by my mailer -- is much smaller than
the number when I wanted it to continue. The only mailer I remember being able
to do it in, really, is mutt, where you could get all the headers into vi, and
delete In-Reply-To:.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274