70% canola oil and counting ... no problems !!

[Guest]

Hi Reno,
How about one on - 'I always ignore the list moderator and happily
hijack threads' ;-)
--
Regards,
Julian Voelcker
Mobile: 07971 540362
Skype: julianvoelcker
Cirencester, United Kingdom
1994 HDJ80, 2.5" OME Lift

 

[Guest]

Each email actually contains much more detail than you are shown
(this applies to all emails). Do a search in your email programs
options and look for "View Long Headers" or similar. It will contain
loads of goobly guuk that helps uniquely identify each message, and
Julians email list program keeps track of messages based on these. So
you need to start a new message from scratch.
Ie:
From: [Email address removed]
Subject: Re: [ELCO] 70% canola oil and counting ... no problems !!
Date: 31 August 2006 12:49:32 BDT
To: [Email address removed]
Reply-To: [Email address removed]
Return-Path: <[Email address removed]>
Delivered-To: yak-roamingyak:[Email address removed]
X-Envelope-To: [Email address removed]
Received: (qmail 77908 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2006 11:51:11
-0000
Received: from mailwash5.pair.com (66.39.2.5) by auddo.pair.com
with SMTP; 31 Aug 2006 11:51:11 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
mailwash5.pair.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CB64F1056A for
<[Email address removed]>; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:51:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from landcruisers.info (ip-87-86-13-211.easynet.co.uk
[87.86.13.211]) by mailwash5.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id
08D7510532 for <[Email address removed]>; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:51:08 -0400
(EDT)
Received: from web51411.mail.yahoo.com [206.190.39.152] by
snowball.e-scapemedia.co.uk (SMTPD32-8.15) id ACC96C504A8; Thu, 31
Aug 2006 12:49:29 +0100
Received: (qmail 35483 invoked by uid 60001); 31 Aug 2006 11:49:32
-0000
Received: from [62.241.89.55] by web51411.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP;
Thu, 31 Aug 2006 04:49:32 PDT
X-Virus-Check-By: mailwash5.pair.com
X-Spam-Check-By: mailwash5.pair.com
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=4.0
tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO,HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE,INFO_TLD
autolearn=disabled version=3.000000
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Filtered: 1501f2c21c97b17993b2ce99f621dea8
Domainkey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024;
d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Receivedate:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-
Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Zrobas+o9a1/52m1teinw6H
+wA696pDVrmfoZtINf56U6Ap5rgCO24tzGLpOi7/wIVztRog2dx/Y
+elxePrRJJGTmIVeKRunO6Whq2324wJ+MFmnhT6T1kRKQu1y2EgiIjrqvl/
7hHS8jV15Ruu50ILdthAXNQYvSEoxJNI6spk= ;
Message-Id: <[Email address removed]>
In-Reply-To: <[Email address removed]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="0-1970330098-1157024972=:35200"
Precedence: bulk
Sender: [Email address removed]

 

[Guest]

Hi Reno,
Not necessarily if you have the list address in your address book.
Yes, see here for more info:
http://www.landcruisers.info/lists/list_threading.html
It does vary from mail program to mail program. I use a proper
threading mail program for lists like this and you can see from the pic
on the page above what a typical thread looks like.
Other programs like Outlook or Outlook Express provided a conversation
view, not sure what the terminology is with other programs.
--
Regards,
Julian Voelcker
Mobile: 07971 540362
Skype: julianvoelcker
Cirencester, United Kingdom
1994 HDJ80, 2.5" OME Lift

 

[Guest]

In Outlook 2003 its "View" > "Arrange by" > Conversation
Pete

 

[Guest]

Reno,
You may wish to appreciate that this list is 100% spam free -
something very rare these days. Read the Yahoo third party advertising
policy to which you must subscribe to use it and your hair will stand
on end!
--
Rgds,
Roman (London, UK)
'92 HDJ80
On 8/31/06, Reno Lamb <[Email address removed]> wrote:

 

[Guest]

Hi Reno,
Thereis in the middle of the page!
Threading of messages was around way before the web went html and
Outlook, Hotmail, etc even existed. They have just ended up ignoring a
valuable feature of the email standards - with decent threading there
is no reason to automatically include copies of messages you are
replying to (the default on most of the above programs) and there is no
reason for the rediculous inbox/outbox paradigm.
The failure of these programs to support threading properly has
resulted in nearly 80-90% of today's emails being copies of messages
already sent.
Large numbers of us on the early alphas of Outlook appealed to MS to
support the full stadards including threading and we were ignored -
they must have shares in bandwidth companies or hardware companies to
justify the waste of both.
Will never move there, but watch this space.....
--
Regards,
Julian Voelcker
Mobile: 07971 540362
Skype: julianvoelcker
Cirencester, United Kingdom
1994 HDJ80, 2.5" OME Lift