[R] E-Mail/Post Threading (was: Bonferroni p-value greater t

[Marc Schwartz]

On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 19:38 +0100, ted.harding at nessie.mcc.ac.uk wrote:
> On 29-Mar-07 17:15:27, Marc Schwartz wrote:
> > [...]
> > Just a quick heads up here, that deleting the body text of
> > a message or changing the subject line, does not alter the
> > 'linkage' between posts.
> > 
> > There are standards for how messages are 'threaded' and largely
> > have to do with the e-mail headers, not the e-mail content.
> > 
> > A couple of quick references that might be helpful:
> > 
> > http://people.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/ietf/message-threading.html
> > 
> > http://www.jwz.org/doc/threading.html
> 
> This above, of course, is a good reason for not replying to an
> existing message when you want to start a completely new thread.
> 
> However, I'm wondering what is the best way to start a new thread
> which legitimately branches out from an existing one.
> 
> For example, someone posts a message which discusses at length a
> method of isotonic binary regression, and in the middle of this
> describes a curious approach to obtaining confidence bands for
> the regression. I'm intrigued by the confidence band issue, get
> some ideas about it, and want to start a new thread to develop
> just this aspect.
> 
> However, to do so I want in the first place to include several
> quotations from the original message. This, of course, is most
> easily done by replying to that message -- so that it gets included
> in the reply -- and editing this included message, and changing
> the subject.
> 
> But that stays in the old thread, which I don't want. Now of course
> one can copy over the old text into a brand new blank message,
> and edit it up into a simulacrum of a "reply" -- all the usual
> "On NN March 2007, XXX wrote:" ... as well as the "> " inclusion
> markers, etc.. But that could be tedious. Nevertheless, perhaps
> it is the right thing to do -- unless there's a work-round using
> the "reply" mechanism?
> 
> Best wishes to all,
> Ted.

Hi Ted,

The general approach, if "relatedly digressing" (also described in
various 'netiquette' guides) is to do what I did here, which is reply to
the post in question, but change the subject header by using "New
Subject (was: Old Subject)".

This enables you to easily engage in the sort of editing that you
describe, and still links your reply back to the original thread, under
the presumption that your reply is in some way related to the subject
matter of the original thread.

Since most e-mail systems (list managers, MUA's, etc.) thread based upon
the headers and not the subject, as described in the above references,
unless you generate a completely new e-mail, your reply will be linked
to the e-mail and thread to which you are replying.

It's pretty much a dichotomous situation.  Use 'reply' and you get
linked to the old thread. Use a 'new' e-mail and you start a new thread.

If you are truly moving in a new direction, I would be tempted to start
a new thread and perhaps to make it easier for readers, include a
reference/link to the post in question. That way, you keep your new
e-mail in a separate thread, while 'virtually' linking it back to the
original that raised your interest.

HTH,

Marc