Re: [tlug] the philosophy of Subj. (?)

["Josh Glover" <jmglov@example.com>]

On 24/06/07, Michal Hajek <hajek1@example.com> wrote:

> My philosophy of Subj. header says that it should inform the reader
> about contents of this particular message. If carefully crafted, it can
> save the reader some time and at the same time, it expresses respect of
> the writer in the relation to the receiver(s).

You are not wrong.

> Relation among different messages should be expressed by using threads.

Except "loose threads" have evolved as a convention, where the subject
line is not changed on replies. The vast majority of people use the
de-facto convention of:

1) Not changing the Subject line, or
2) When it is necessary, do the "New topic (was: Old topic)" dance

The last time this came up (I'm not having much luck in coaxing
ht://Dig to give me the correct thread; maybe Jim has it?), we
basically agreed that:

1) Jim is free to do what he wants, as he is exactly biding by the RFCs, but
2) We'd appreciate if he honoured the de-facto convention of not
changing Subject lines unless absolutely necessary, and then leaving a
(was: Foo) trail.

Jim agreed, and this topic died until now.

So why you gotta troll, bro? ;)

--
Cheers,
Josh