On 15-04-16 13:14, g wrote:
On 04/15/16 04:29, Patrick Laimbock wrote:
On 15-04-16 00:39, Andrew Daviel wrote:
<<>>
Patrick,
'threading breaking' is against centos etiquette and netiquette.
replying thread breakers does nothing but encourage them to do so again.
many subscribers frown on thread breakers and their responders.
please help good etiquette by not responding to them.
thank you.
Please keep your posting on-list.
It's unclear what you mean. I saw a new message on the ML and responded to it. Where did this 'threading breaking' take place?
Patrick
On 04/15/16 06:40, Patrick Laimbock wrote:
On 15-04-16 13:14, g wrote:
On 04/15/16 04:29, Patrick Laimbock wrote:
On 15-04-16 00:39, Andrew Daviel wrote:
<<>>
Patrick,
'threading breaking' is against centos etiquette and netiquette.
replying thread breakers does nothing but encourage them to do so again.
many subscribers frown on thread breakers and their responders.
please help good etiquette by not responding to them.
thank you.
Please keep your posting on-list.
===> my email to you had nothing to do with original thread;
Subject: [CentOS] mount bind problems
email to you "off list" was because i did not wish to add to breaking raveling of thread.
doing so now is only because of your request and desire for further raveling of original thread.
It's unclear what you mean. I saw a new message on the ML and responded to it. Where did this 'threading breaking' take place?
===>
the threading breaking took place when Andrew Daviel got too lazy to compose a new email.
what he obviously did was select "reply" to a post by Robert Nichols. then in compose window, changed "Subject:" to 'Freeradius, openldap, and TLS". then he removed _all_ of text that was in 'body' and type in his problem.
what he is obviously unaware of, as are you, that still in email headers where _all_ references to original thread.
also, what he is obviously unaware of is that time he spent is much longer than it would have been had he simply started with a fresh, blank email composure.
my apologies to rest of readers that i have further broken original thread.
i extend no apologies to Andrew Dumbviel or to Patrick Lameblock. B-)
Thanks for your reply re. TLS
On Fri, 15 Apr 2016, Patrick Laimbock wrote:
It's unclear what you mean. I saw a new message on the ML and responded to it. Where did this 'threading breaking' take place?
My mistake; apologies to to other list members.
I had replied to an existing message, to grab the list address with a minimum number of keystrokes.
I had forgotten that my mailer would automatically include the Message-ID header in hidden In-Reply-To: and References: mail headers. Mailman (used by the CentOS list archives) creates message threads first by In-Reply-To and then by Subject headers. This caused my message to be grouped with the existing messages about "mount bind problem" in https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2016-April/thread.html
(per e.g. https://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users@python.org/msg62609.html)
The mail client Thunderbird appears to use a different algorithm; in that, I see your message (this one I'm replying to) in the original "mount bind" thread, while in the archive I see it in a separate thread.
Andrew
-
Andrew Daviel -
g -
Patrick Laimbock