Please be careful renaming threads!

"Karen AKA Kajikit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Please don't rename threads unless you're changing the topic of
discussion. I don't know how other newsreaders work, but Agent threads
posts by title, so now I have a screen FULL of 'can I be your dowager'
(Fred) etc mini-threads... there was nothing wrong with the original
thread, but now it's broken up into a billion parts instead of neatly
together.

I think this was done on purpose to reply to individuals. (Got the hint from
the PING Wertz thread)
There followed netiquette and so on...

Sarah

In article <[email hidden]>,

Karen AKA Kajikit said:

Please don't rename threads unless you're changing the topic of
discussion. I don't know how other newsreaders work, but Agent threads
posts by title, so now I have a screen FULL of 'can I be your dowager'
(Fred) etc mini-threads... there was nothing wrong with the original
thread, but now it's broken up into a billion parts instead of neatly
together.

I simply killfiled it. ;-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

Karen AKA Kajikit said:

Please don't rename threads unless you're changing the topic of
discussion. I don't know how other newsreaders work, but Agent threads
posts by title, so now I have a screen FULL of 'can I be your dowager'
(Fred) etc mini-threads... there was nothing wrong with the original
thread, but now it's broken up into a billion parts instead of neatly
together.

I asked this question to Wertz and haven't gotten an answer so I'll ask
you too.

On my system (mozilla on a Linux platform), if I reply to a thread, I
have the opportunity to change the subject line. I did that on the
thread titled "montreal." I changed it to "Montreal" a couple times.
The changed subject line remains in the same thread. Did that start a
new thread on your system?

When I hit "compose," I can type in the same subject line, but it will
show up in a different thread. I don't do that often. Usually when I
hit "compose," it is because I want to start a new thread, and I give it
a new subject line.

Your system does it differently? It seems to me that changing the
subject line ought to be a good thing. I love it when the subject line
changes to reflect the contents of a post. It makes it so much easier
for me to decide what to read and what to delete without reading.

--Lia

Julia Altshuler said...

Quoted message said:

Your system does it differently? It seems to me that changing the
subject line ought to be a good thing. I love it when the subject line
changes to reflect the contents of a post. It makes it so much easier
for me to decide what to read and what to delete without reading.

If you change a subject line, all servers will see it that way and everyone
reading will see it.

You correctly noticed when the thread has tangented with enough interest,
that's a fine time for the "new subject" Was "old subject." change to a new
thread. It's considered good etiquette to clue readers in to the change
this way.

A typo as in "My favorite hambuger" in the subject guarantees that it
renders it and any replies unsearchable when hunting for "hamburgers."
That's also a perfect time to rename a thread once you notice a typo. I've
corrected a few subject lines of others posters to get it back on track
after the original post, but somehow it wasn't appreciated. What's a BUM!!!
to do?

One habit I've gotten into is I always type my subject line into the body
of the message, first, since I can spell check it within the body of the
message, then cut and paste it into the subject line without typos. Grammar
is another matter. 😉

You can always practice by posting messages to the alt.test (text matter
only) or alt.test.binaries (binary w/text matter) newsgroups on your
server.

All the best,

Andy

Quoted message said:

Please don't rename threads unless you're changing the topic of
discussion. I don't know how other newsreaders work, but Agent threads
posts by title, so now I have a screen FULL of 'can I be your dowager'
(Fred) etc mini-threads... there was nothing wrong with the original
thread, but now it's broken up into a billion parts instead of neatly
together.

If you go with a newer version of Agent (3.3 or above), there is an
option to keep threads together even if the subject changes. The
option is not available in Free Agent.

Karen AKA Kajikit said:

Please don't rename threads unless you're changing the topic of
discussion. I don't know how other newsreaders work, but Agent threads
posts by title, so now I have a screen FULL of 'can I be your dowager'
(Fred) etc mini-threads... there was nothing wrong with the original
thread, but now it's broken up into a billion parts instead of neatly
together.

How about just starting new threads instead of hijacking existing ones?

mooncup said:

Karen AKA Kajikit said:

Please don't rename threads unless you're changing the topic of
discussion. I don't know how other newsreaders work, but Agent threads
posts by title, so now I have a screen FULL of 'can I be your dowager'
(Fred) etc mini-threads... there was nothing wrong with the original
thread, but now it's broken up into a billion parts instead of neatly
together.

How about just starting new threads instead of hijacking existing ones?

How about people just emailing the personal responses to the other party
directly instead? Wouldn't that be more direct and save everyone else
any trouble?

Quoted message said:

mooncup said:

Karen AKA Kajikit said:

Please don't rename threads unless you're changing the topic of
discussion. I don't know how other newsreaders work, but Agent threads
posts by title, so now I have a screen FULL of 'can I be your dowager'
(Fred) etc mini-threads... there was nothing wrong with the original
thread, but now it's broken up into a billion parts instead of neatly
together.

How about just starting new threads instead of hijacking existing ones?

How about people just emailing the personal responses to the other party
directly instead? Wouldn't that be more direct and save everyone else
any trouble?

Yeah, but putting your real email address onto Usenet is just inviting
massive spam. Savvy net users don't do it.

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:25:39 -0400, Goomba38 <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

How about people just emailing the personal responses to the other party
directly instead? Wouldn't that be more direct and save everyone else
any trouble?

That would be just peachy if people posted with valid email
addresses.... as it is, it's kinda hard to email a private thanks to
[email hidden] or [email hidden]

Some people think they are being smart by putting up totally
inaccessible addresses. I think it's downright juvenal in this day
and age. ISPs allow multiple mailboxes and there is a slew of web
based email like gmail, hotmail, yahoo etc, so there is no need to
munge anymore. The best idea of course is to hide your address so
that it's not up for public view, but even the most net savvy posters
here don't seem to have a clue.

--

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies. Groucho Marks

<sf> wrote

Quoted message said:

Some people think they are being smart by putting up totally
inaccessible addresses. I think it's downright juvenal in this day
and age. ISPs allow multiple mailboxes and there is a slew of web
based email like gmail, hotmail, yahoo etc, so there is no need to
munge anymore. The best idea of course is to hide your address so
that it's not up for public view, but even the most net savvy posters
here don't seem to have a clue.

I set up this mail box just for Usenet. It's all I use it for. Anyone can
reach me, but nobody can muck up my usual mailbox.

In article <[email hidden]>,

mooncup said:

Karen AKA Kajikit said:

Please don't rename threads unless you're changing the topic of
discussion. I don't know how other newsreaders work, but Agent threads
posts by title, so now I have a screen FULL of 'can I be your dowager'
(Fred) etc mini-threads... there was nothing wrong with the original
thread, but now it's broken up into a billion parts instead of neatly
together.

How about just starting new threads instead of hijacking existing ones?

Thread Drift happens...
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

In article said:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:25:39 -0400, Goomba38 <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

How about people just emailing the personal responses to the other party
directly instead? Wouldn't that be more direct and save everyone else
any trouble?

That would be just peachy if people posted with valid email
addresses.... as it is, it's kinda hard to email a private thanks to
[email hidden] or [email hidden]

Some people think they are being smart by putting up totally
inaccessible addresses. I think it's downright juvenal in this day
and age. ISPs allow multiple mailboxes and there is a slew of web
based email like gmail, hotmail, yahoo etc, so there is no need to
munge anymore. The best idea of course is to hide your address so
that it's not up for public view, but even the most net savvy posters
here don't seem to have a clue.

What I do is working fine for me.
I gently spam proof it and put the "clue" in my sig.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a [censored]" -- Jack Nicholson

<sf> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:25:39 -0400, Goomba38
<[email hidden]>
wrote:

Some people think they are being smart by putting up totally
inaccessible addresses. I think it's downright juvenal in
this day
and age. ISPs allow multiple mailboxes and there is a slew of
web
based email like gmail, hotmail, yahoo etc, so there is no
need to
munge anymore. The best idea of course is to hide your
address so
that it's not up for public view, but even the most net savvy
posters
here don't seem to have a clue.

Many people, like myself, use an obvious misspelling. It's
really only meant to beat spamming robot programs not someone
who really wishes to get in touch and I have found it quite
satisfactory.

--
Jim Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

sf said:

Some people think they are being smart by putting up totally
inaccessible addresses. I think it's downright juvenal in this day
and age. ISPs allow multiple mailboxes and there is a slew of web
based email like gmail, hotmail, yahoo etc, so there is no need to
munge anymore. The best idea of course is to hide your address so
that it's not up for public view, but even the most net savvy posters
here don't seem to have a clue.

The whole idea is to not receive spam. What good

Steve Wertz said:

sf said:

Some people think they are being smart by putting up totally
inaccessible addresses. I think it's downright juvenal in this day
and age. ISPs allow multiple mailboxes and there is a slew of web
based email like gmail, hotmail, yahoo etc, so there is no need to
munge anymore. The best idea of course is to hide your address so
that it's not up for public view, but even the most net savvy posters
here don't seem to have a clue.

The whole idea is to not receive spam.

Ironically, this address receives the least spam of all (I have
four).... maybe one a month.

--
See return address to reply by email

sf said:

Steve Wertz said:

sf said:

Some people think they are being smart by putting up totally
inaccessible addresses. I think it's downright juvenal in this day
and age. ISPs allow multiple mailboxes and there is a slew of web
based email like gmail, hotmail, yahoo etc, so there is no need to
munge anymore. The best idea of course is to hide your address so
that it's not up for public view, but even the most net savvy posters
here don't seem to have a clue.

The whole idea is to not receive spam.

Ironically, this address receives the least spam of all (I have
four).... maybe one a month.

Spammers don't harvest Reply-To: addresses. I imagine newbies
have trouble finding your address, too (displaying full
headers, etc...). Many people would just think your email
address is "sf <>"

-sw

sf said:

Ironically, this address receives the least spam of all (I have
four).... maybe one a month.

Wow, you are so lucky. I get lots of spam every day. Apparently "Russian
Women" are anxious to meet me, I feel inadequate compared to other men,
my Viagra order is ready, and plenty of people are trying to send me
greeting cards. I use Postini and they keep the spam and the viruses
away from my computer.

Becca

Becca said:

sf said:

Ironically, this address receives the least spam of all (I have
four).... maybe one a month.

Wow, you are so lucky. I get lots of spam every day. Apparently "Russian
Women" are anxious to meet me, I feel inadequate compared to other men,
my Viagra order is ready, and plenty of people are trying to send me
greeting cards. I use Postini and they keep the spam and the viruses
away from my computer.

I'm not sure why I'm getting so little, but I assure you that I am.
Here I am all set up with a spam catcher address and it doesn't get
much exercise.

--
See return address to reply by email

Becca said:

plenty of people are trying to send me greeting cards.

I've been getting a ton of those lately. They want you to
download a virus/trojan that turns your machine into one of their
own personal spam generators.

-sw