Thunderbird/Live/Outlook users' habits

Derick Centeno aguilarojo at
Mon Jan 24 14:16:28 CET 2011

In my view, what you are really discussing are how individuals parse or 
associate ideas.  It just so happens that what makes information 
different from raw and discrete data are the cultural and religious 
assumptions and context added to the data.  Briefly stated, as any 
Anthropologist and/or Psychologist will explain, humans find it a nearly 
impossible task to separate their cultural and/or religious assumptions 
from what individuals define as being "logical".  At the root of this 
problem are not merely these assumptions, but language itself which 
incorporates and reaffirms these assumptions continuously providing the 
illusion of support of the "logical" appearance of the assumption.

These prejudices, for lack of a better term, influence not only what we 
see as "logical", but what we see or accept as viable science.  This is 
a more intractable problem than writing any program or straightforward 
script as the very foundation regarding what one believes needs to be 
addressed or corrected is seen in terms of one's individual, and usually 
untested, understanding.  Of course, although as a society humanity 
developed mathematics and science to see such errors of thinking more 
clearly it is sadly also obvious that history shows very clearly that 
more often than not, humans require more than a generation at the 
minimum to catch such errors.

On 1/24/2011 7:15 AM, Tobias Nissen wrote:
> Colin Leroy wrote:
> [...]
>> I think a solution would be to remove In-Reply-To and References
>> headers using an action. The difficulty of it is that References can
>> span multiple lines.
> I could easily parse that, but there's another problem. Consider this
> thread:
>    A
>     ->  B
>       ->  ...
>     ->  C        (new)
>       ->  D      (my reply)
>         ->  E    (others' replies)
>       ->  F      (others' reply)
>       ->  ...
> Let's say C is the subthread with the changed subject line, that is
> supposed to be a new thread. Of course I could go on and remove those
> references. C would then stand alone as the beginning of a new thread.
> My reply to C (D) and replies to my reply (E) would then correctly be
> filed under that new thread.
> But direct replies to C (F) would still contain some references to the
> old thread, A in this case. It doesn't really matter what Claws does in
> this case, my guess would be to still file the reply under C. But all
> direct replies to C would still have those "stale" references to A.
> I don't consider this a good idea. Say for some reason I'd want to
> delete message C. I would then expect that all replies to C would either
> stand alone or form *new* thread beginnings. Instead, at least that's
> a behaviour I observed in my past MUAs, all those messages would again
> be filed under A. Maybe not right then, but surely when the index is
> rebuilt for some reason.
> I think there's now way around building a sophisticated filtering
> mechanism. I think it's really hard to do right.
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20110124/a5f4d77d/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list