Date: 03 Apr 1999 11:22:00 +0200
From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Message-ID: <7EAG3p1mw-B@khms.westfalen.de>
In-Reply-To: <14549.922081131@munnari.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: References and In-Reply-To (section 3.6.4)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
References: <7DI5WJEXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <7DI5WfvHw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <14549.922081131@munnari.OZ.AU>
Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.

kre@munnari.OZ.AU (Robert Elz)  wrote on 22.03.99 in <14549.922081131@munnari.OZ.AU>:

>     Date:        21 Mar 1999 20:02:00 +0200
>     From:        kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)
>     Message-ID:  <7DI5WJEXw-B@khms.westfalen.de>
>
>   | In a similar situation, I'd pick any one of those messages - probably
> the   | one best suited to give some context to quote - and reply to that,
> and cc   | the other people.
>
> If you're forced to a second rate interface, that's probably the best

But that's not why I'm doing it that way. It's because it's easier to just  
pick one message, that to go and hunt down all of them.

I can't imagine a UI where that's not true.

> to any of the messages to which you're replying.   It is entirely reasonable
> to quote some context out of a quite different message, like:
>
> kaih@khms.westfalen.de said in <7DI5WfvHw-B@khms.westfalen.de>:
>    | Which RFC would that be?
>
> and since that message is then referenced, add it to the References (see
> the headers...)   (I happened to pick one of your messages just because it
> was the last one received from drums before the one to which I am now
> replying).

And that message is what my reader now thinks you have been replying to.

>   | That's not what I'm talking about. What I see is someone answering to
>   | several parts of one thread in one "collect" message, usually because
> they   | feel that separate messages would be a waste.
>
> Yes, certainly people can do that.   But just because that is one kind of
> multi-message reply does not mean it is the only one.

It's the one I see.

>   | > | Oh, and I seriously question the logic here. It most definitely is
>   | > *not* | clearly useful if it's not actually used.
>   | >
>   | > Because you don't use doesn't mean it isn't used.  believe me, it *is*
>   | > used.
>   |
>   | That's a different question altogether.
>
> No it isn't.   Read the initial quote from you.   You said if it isn't
> actually used, then it is not useful.   Refuting that simply involves
> showing that it is used.

Nonsense.

I quite clearly said that it's the *logic* I questioned, not the  
conclusion. To refute that, you have to show that the logic is sound, not  
that the premise was actually false.

I write what I write for a reason.

>   | For one, I've never quite understood why some people delete mail
> *faster*   | than news.
>
> That's easy.   Mail is in my private mailstore.  It is for me alone.
> When I have finished with it, I delete it.  News, on the other hand,
> is shared.   Just because I have read it doesn't mean that everyone else
> who wants to read it has done so.   Consequently, it is kept "long enough"
> for everyone to have had a reasonable chance to read it.

So you never want to refer to old mail or news?

>   | I usually keep news for 14 days, list mail for 60, and personal
>   | mail for 365. If I feel I want something longer, there's a flag I can
> set   | to prevent it being expired.
>
> I *never* expire mail.   Ever.   No matter what.   I delete junk, as soon
> as I see it (do you really keep "Hi, my name is Sue, and you can see *all*
> of me at http://..." which is addressed to you (ie: personal mail) for 365
> days???

Only if my filter doesn't catch it. Most of it lands in />Killed-Mail  
where it currently expires after 9 days - that's up from 3 days since for  
reasons completely inexplicable to me, cs.utk.edu doesn't manage to get  
out of ORBS, and I want a chance of finding drums stuff before it's thrown  
away.

>For me, mail on a list that I receive only because there's a tiny
> chance that there may be something relevant is junk as soon as I see it
> (except for that one in a thousand message which is of interest, and which
> I then keep).

But that means that you *have to* look at it at once. Isn't that a bit  
silly?

I much prefer to just file it away in it's own folder, and then whenever I  
happen to want to, go looking in there. Just the way news works,  
incidentally.

>Most lists are archived somewhere anyway, there's no reason
> that I need to duplicate that archive (even for a month or two).

Locating that archive, then trying to read it via one of those junk Web  
interfaces - or having t sent to me again from some sort of listserv -  
when I could instead use my own reader's search functions on my local  
disk, especially given how cheap disk space has become, seem remarkably  
silly to me.

>I keep
> only what I decide has value to me - all the rest is deleted as soon as
> I have read it.

Well, I prefer to have some time to decide on the value. If I do decide I  
want to keep it, I set the relevant flag to prevent expiration, usually by  
pressing the "Insert" key while reading said message - not that there's  
anything particularly relevant to the specific key.

> (will all parents being truly equal) are not permitted.   I won't insist
> that you run software that lets you do that, if you see no need for it.
> On the other hand, you don't insist that the standards prohibit what I
> want to achieve, OK?

It's an interoperability problem.

>   | It doesn't match the way I handle list mail, which is in batches, or by
>   | searching for stuff. Neither of wich works with the fast-delete thing.
>
> Fine.   I can't search back through junk list mail which I have already
> determined contains nothing of interest.   Do you think I am suffering
> because of that?   Not that this is relevant to anything much.

Yes. Not because you can't search it, but because you force yourself to  
determine that beforehand.

MfG Kai