[Evolution-hackers] Thread Stealing (Was: Re: Nor “Answer to list”, nor “answer to all” make use of “Cc” …add “wide answer”?)

["Garreau\, Alexandre" <galex-713 galex-713 eu>]

On 2018-05-29 at 10:06, Milan Crha wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 02:48 +0200, Garreau, Alexandre wrote:
> > (not the same thing as a thread may change topic by having one of its
> > participant changing its subject line)
>
>       Hi
> off topic:
> a) I'm replying intentionally to the list

Like everybody does (and is expected to do) here right (…from what I
understood)?

> b) I'm talking to you, the person written at the very first line
>    of this mail, because "Garreau, Alexandre wrote:"

That contradicts my interpretation of the “To:” header line, but beside
frustration and past misunderstandement… okay…

> c) I do not know how much intentionally you did it, but you wrote
>    three different topics here, in a way that there is one thread
>    which covers all three topics in a very sad way. They use to
>    call it "thread stealing".

Isn’t stealing about something that’s not yours?  All three messages did
references other ones because I first wrote all them in one enormous
message with cross-references in it then separated in 3 messages that
did link to each other through message-id as footnode.  Also I didn’t
find any information about “thread stealing” anywhere on the web nor in
RFC nor in mailing-lists I use beside this 2002 message on debian-user
(back to a time I wasn’t subscribed to it) [1]

If you inspect the In-Reply-To headers you’ll see none of these is
marked as an answer to another, yet References mark them because some of
them do reference the other ones.  I tried to follow what I did
understand the first [2] and last [3] time I did read about them,
In-Reply-To and References headers were distinguished in this way.  It
also sometimes happen, the same way, that I happen answering several
messages with one messages, in which case my message have several
messages in the In-Reply-To header, but I happen to use only this one
for identifying how does flow a thread, while references is much to
identify what might have been missed in a discussion (as it may
reference how is it meant to be placed related to a sibling or even
nephew of the current thread without necessarily answer to it, so that
to correctly displaying orphan siblings in a single thread).

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2002/11/msg00664.html
[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc822
[3] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.4