[MPlayer-users] [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: Re IYUV fourcc

[The Wanderer]

Nico Sabbi wrote:

> Francois Visagie wrote:
> 
>> Hi Carl,
>> 
>> Although this is off-topic in my opinion, in my opinion I'm
>> entitled to voice my opinion at least once (as is everyone else)
>> and so I'll do.
>> 
>> I don't think much can be done to prevent "breaking threads"
>> unfortunately -
> 
> are you kidding??
> you break threads when you reply to received messages posting
> unrelated subjects.

...what are you talking about?

That's thread hijacking, not breaking threading.

Breaking threading happens when the In-Reply-To header is not set
correctly, and happens worse when the Subject line is also modified at
the same time.

> When you want to write of something not related to a thread simply
> create a new message, not a reply
> 
>> even manually correcting the subject doesn't work on any of the
>> mailing lists I've tried it.

That's because threading is not done based on the Subject line, but on
the rather more esoteric In-Reply-To header. Here's what will (or
should) work:

Look at the list of all headers for the message you are replying to.

Find the Message-ID header. For your most recent post, this was
"<532B77054B89D711B8D70002B3A0F75D05F122B2 at panda.datavoice.co.za>"
(without quotes).

As the very first line of your post, before any quotes or other new
text, add an In-Reply-To header by hand (which is possible because mail
headers are simply plain, unformatted text with a particular syntax) and
give that Message-ID.


Unlike all of the in-message formatting which we ordinarily request that
people do, this *is* more hand work than is necessarily appropriate.
That's why the fix we normally suggest for people whose replies break
threads is to start using a different mail program, and if necessary a
different mail account. (Or, at least, configure their mail client to
correctly set the In-Reply-To header - but I'm not entirely sure how
that would be possible with most which do not do it by default.)

I do happen to know that it is entirely possible to have Outlook,
normally the worst mail-formatting offender, set that header correctly -
because the replies I receive from co-workers in my work environment,
where everyone except me uses that program, are threaded correctly 90%
of the time. However, I do not know what the difference is.

>> In general however, in my view it's stuck-up and self-righteous in
>> the extreme to behave so rigidly in defense of entirely
>> unjustifiable norms.

It *is* justifiable - in that it makes it much easier to follow a
discussion, and it induces more correct snipping.

Top-posted discussions are harder to follow than ones which are not
(particularly long after the fact), because you have to manually locate
the beginning of the oldest message (near the bottom of the post) and
read it downwards, then go up again to the beginning of the next message
and read it downwards, and repeat.

Non-top-posted discussions which do not use a recognizable form of
quoting are harder to follow than ones which do, because it is not as
easily possible to determine at a glance exactly which stage of the
discussion a given quote came from or exactly who said it.

My .sig from work may be slightly relevant on one of these points:

==
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
==

>> Sure it's nice to receive all your emails arranged and formatted
>> the same way - it saves time amongst others. But when the mailing
>> list carries only a few tens of messages daily? To fanatically
>> expect everyone to manicure their messages to perfection and to
>> vigilantly enforce that practice probably take more time, energy
>> and aggravation than you save.

You could also argue that it would take proportionally *more* time,
energy and aggravation to do this on a higher-volume list, and so argue
against doing it at all.

The facts are that there are more-or-less solid reasons for these
requirements, and that top posting is considered at best a faux pas in
virtually all of Internet society except that fraction which learned all
of its rules from Microsoft.

Failing to follow these norms makes it harder and more aggravating for
us (read: "the people who actually do the work", which has not
technically included me for some years) to read your posts, and leaves
us less inclined to bother doing so. Unlike with e.g. the rules for
submitting patches or bug reports, we are not hard-line about refusing
to pay attention to posts which break them, but the reasoning is partly
the same and some of the same principle does apply.

-- 
       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.