-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
This is a plea to all mailing list users, especially people using gmail.
PLEASE, if you are starting a new thread (a new topic for discussion), can you start a new email/message, rather than just hitting reply to an existing message and changing the topic. If you reply to an existing topic, email clients will assume that it is continuing the discussion (when it actually isn't).
This means that people may miss your message because they aren't particularly interested in the thread you hit reply to, so they aren't reading all replies. Using threaded mode to display emails, in clients such as Thunderbird, means that new discussion topics do not actually show up as new discussion topics, which is inconvenient.
Thanks, Chris (Talrias on en)
- -- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org
On 7/15/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
This is a plea to all mailing list users, especially people using gmail.
PLEASE, if you are starting a new thread (a new topic for discussion), can you start a new email/message, rather than just hitting reply to an existing message and changing the topic. If you reply to an existing topic, email clients will assume that it is continuing the discussion (when it actually isn't).
While I endorse your comments, Chris, may I note that the reason I use GMail for mailing list traffic is because it is so very good at handling threads (which it calls conversations).
So long as the subject doesn't change, all unread messages are presented on a single page one after the other. Messages already read are shown in a "stacked up" manner. I keep my normal email for personal stuff, but I've transferred all of the several lists to which I subscribe onto GMail.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Skyring wrote:
While I endorse your comments, Chris, may I note that the reason I use GMail for mailing list traffic is because it is so very good at handling threads (which it calls conversations).
So long as the subject doesn't change, all unread messages are presented on a single page one after the other. Messages already read are shown in a "stacked up" manner. I keep my normal email for personal stuff, but I've transferred all of the several lists to which I subscribe onto GMail.
Well, not that I want to start moaning about gmail, but if the way it works is not in line with existing email clients and email servers, which it does, as it ignores the in-reply-to header, I wouldn't really call it "very good". :)
Chris
- -- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org
On 7/15/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Well, not that I want to start moaning about gmail, but if the way it works is not in line with existing email clients and email servers, which it does, as it ignores the in-reply-to header, I wouldn't really call it "very good". :)
No offence at all, but you may be in the position of someone who doesn't like TiVo because it's not the way they are used to, or someone who doesn't see the need for a scroll wheel on a mouse.
I use GMail for list traffic because it presents a host of posts in an accessible manner, not because it works well with Outlook or whatever. Perhaps you should try it and see why I do this, and why others do the same thing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Skyring wrote:
No offence at all, but you may be in the position of someone who doesn't like TiVo because it's not the way they are used to, or someone who doesn't see the need for a scroll wheel on a mouse.
Not at all. The position I'm in is that Google have made an email client which 'breaks' existing conventions for threading, and so it makes people (possibly unintentionally) take shortcuts, which work for them, but don't work for others.
I use GMail for list traffic because it presents a host of posts in an accessible manner, not because it works well with Outlook or whatever. Perhaps you should try it and see why I do this, and why others do the same thing.
I have a gmail account and indeed I used to use it to post to this mailing list. I prefer a dedicated email client, such as Thunderbird, however. I do agree that gmail displays it in an accessible manner, with some clever functionality. This, of course, can be achieved without breaking existing conventions.
In the meantime, please don't take shortcuts to start new threads. The post reply button is for exactly that, and nothing else! :)
Chris
- -- Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org
On 15/07/05, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
While I endorse your comments, Chris, may I note that the reason I use GMail for mailing list traffic is because it is so very good at handling threads (which it calls conversations).
So long as the subject doesn't change, all unread messages are presented on a single page one after the other. Messages already read are shown in a "stacked up" manner. I keep my normal email for personal stuff, but I've transferred all of the several lists to which I subscribe onto GMail.
The problem is that GMail is not the only threaded mailreader, and that some of them (esp. older ones) work in a different way.
In the mail to which I'm replying, there's two header lines showing the threading information:
In-Reply-To: 42D71B2F.5020808@starglade.org References: 42D71B2F.5020808@starglade.org
Many systems use *these* to thread, rather than subject line (which can be very handy when subject lines start picking up or losing extra Re:'s), in much the same way as Usenet posts. Hence the desire to send a new message, which wouldn't have this internal information, and thus wouldn't be threaded...
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:02:16 +0100 Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Well, not that I want to start moaning about gmail, but if the way it works is not in line with existing email clients and email servers, which it does, as it ignores the in-reply-to header, I wouldn't really call it "very good". :)
Agreed, was thinking the same thing myself! "Rather poor" is probably a better description if that's the case.
On 7/15/05, James Gibbon wikipedia@jamesgibbon.com wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:02:16 +0100 Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Well, not that I want to start moaning about gmail, but if the way it works is not in line with existing email clients and email servers, which it does, as it ignores the in-reply-to header, I wouldn't really call it "very good". :)
Agreed, was thinking the same thing myself! "Rather poor" is probably a better description if that's the case.
It depends if you are talking about using it for viewing threads, which is what I was doing, or discussing compatibility with other browsers, which is what you two are doing!
I can't do anything about the second, and on that score perhaps you'd like to redirect grumbles to Google.
However, I can and now do, initiate a new mail, rather than just replying to a previous one and changing the subject line, when kicking off a new subject.
Dig It : a forum for Euro Beatles fans - http://beatles.dyndns.org/
Reminds me of the outrage and horror I first felt when I saw a German language book called "Die Beatles!"
On 15/07/05, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
It depends if you are talking about using it for viewing threads, which is what I was doing, or discussing compatibility with other browsers, which is what you two are doing!
At risk of being pedantic, the distinction is more between the way it *presents* threads (very well) and the way it *defines* them (rather badly).
I really like GMail's interface for dealing with conversations, and it's a bold step away from the traditional tree-view. However, for some reason best known to its designers, it ignores the standard [and, I believe, Standardised] way of defining a thread (the headers in each message which indicate its relationship to others) and uses completely idiosyncratic heuristics instead.
As an example of why this method is actually *worse* (rather than just different), note that I had to search for the beginning of this thread, because someone had changed the subject and GMail could not connect the two parts. There may be counter-examples where it handles certain situations *better*, but it seems to me that they'd have done better building *on top of* long-established conventions, rather than ignoring them.
For me, GMail is "quite good" at threads right now, but would be "very good" if it used in-reply-to etc as at least a factor in its grouping.
I can't do anything about the second, and on that score perhaps you'd like to redirect grumbles to Google.
This, of course, is absolutely true, and I hope no-one is too annoyed at the off-topic-ness of this thread.
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 05:46:47 +1000 Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/15/05, James Gibbon wikipedia@jamesgibbon.com wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:02:16 +0100 Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Well, not that I want to start moaning about gmail, but if the way it works is not in line with existing email clients and email servers, which it does, as it ignores the in-reply-to header, I wouldn't really call it "very good". :)
Agreed, was thinking the same thing myself! "Rather poor" is probably a better description if that's the case.
It depends if you are talking about using it for viewing threads, which is what I was doing, or discussing compatibility with other browsers, which is what you two are doing!
Personally, I was talking about its compatibility with accepted standards for handling threads :D
James
Just in case people didn't know, GMail will automatically remember the addresses of anyone you have sent mail to or replied to. Just type "w" in the "to" field and wikien-l@wikipedia.org should be there, presuming you've sent a message to the list before.
That's just as easy as replying to some other message.
On 7/16/05, James Gibbon wikipedia@jamesgibbon.com wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 05:46:47 +1000 Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/15/05, James Gibbon wikipedia@jamesgibbon.com wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:02:16 +0100 Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Well, not that I want to start moaning about gmail, but if the way it works is not in line with existing email clients and email servers, which it does, as it ignores the in-reply-to header, I wouldn't really call it "very good". :)
Agreed, was thinking the same thing myself! "Rather poor" is probably a better description if that's the case.
It depends if you are talking about using it for viewing threads, which is what I was doing, or discussing compatibility with other browsers, which is what you two are doing!
Personally, I was talking about its compatibility with accepted standards for handling threads :D
James
-- Dig It : a forum for European Beatles fans - http://beatles.dyndns.org/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:19:15 +1000 Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
Just in case people didn't know, GMail will automatically remember the addresses of anyone you have sent mail to or replied to. Just type "w" in the "to" field and wikien-l@wikipedia.org should be there, presuming you've sent a message to the list before.
Strictly speaking it's your browser, not GMail, that remembers the text you type into particular fields - and some browsers may not do this.
James
On 18/07/05, James Gibbon wikipedia@jamesgibbon.com wrote:
Strictly speaking it's your browser, not GMail, that remembers the text you type into particular fields - and some browsers may not do this.
No, GMail has a built-in auto-complete from its internal address book. You have to remember that GMail is so heavily JavaScripted that it's more like a mail client in its own right that just happens to run inside your web browser - a genuine "web application", I guess, although that term is so full of hype it makes me cringe to use it.
It's actually got some quite interesting UI features, like the "stack of cards" conversation display, and the way the spell-check works. [Of course, you can also view it in "basic HTML" or connect to your inbox over POP3, but the normal interface is part of what makes it stand out]
(If you want to try it out for yourself and see what I mean, drop me a line and I'll "invite" you)
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:46:14 +0100 Rowan Collins rowan.collins@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/07/05, James Gibbon wikipedia@jamesgibbon.com wrote:
Strictly speaking it's your browser, not GMail, that remembers the text you type into particular fields - and some browsers may not do this.
No, GMail has a built-in auto-complete from its internal address book. You have to remember that GMail is so heavily JavaScripted that it's more like a mail client in its own right that just happens to run inside your web browser - a genuine "web application", I guess, although that term is so full of hype it makes me cringe to use it.
Ah! Forgive my assumption, then. I'm quite attached to Sylpheed - a Linux mailer that works with MH folders, so I imagine that converting existing mail might be a bit painful - but I must admit I'm sufficiently intrigued to give it a go, if poss.
James