[ perhaps try this http://logic-users.org/forums LUG Admin] I am still facing the old problem where Apple Mail groups messages into threads very oddly, with unrelated posted being grouped together as a thread, and same-subject messages being split into two or more threads. I do not know if this is an Apple Mail issue, a LUG issue, or a user issue (where people are replying to a message to create a new one, as opposed to actually creating a new message). I also feel this has actually gotten *worse* since the list expanded to include logic- users.org (I don't know if how the this and Yahoo Groups interface could have any effect on this, but it seems to me to do so.) Does anyone have any good solutions for this? I know I'm throwing away messages I actually want to read, it's impossible not to without not grouping by thread and reading *every* message, something I quite simply don't have the time or inclination to do. It's to the point where I find myself becoming less interested in reading the list, simply because it's extremely difficult to follow anything anymore. (I still wish that the group was on Usenet instead of a mailing list, but I know I am in the minority there.) Perhaps someday it would move to an all-online forum, as opposed to email, and then the forum software (be it PHPBB or something else) would control the threading. Brian :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Logic Audio Pro 7.1 PowerMac G4 933MHz OS X 10.4.2 1 GB RAM MOTU 828mkII - driver v1.2.5 - CueMix v1.5 - firmware 1.0.1 - bootloader 1.0.1

On Feb 26, 2006, at 5:55 AM, Brian Pylant wrote: > I am still facing the old problem where Apple Mail groups messages > into threads very oddly, with unrelated posted being grouped together > as a thread, and same-subject messages being split into two or more > threads. This appears to be a problem in Mail.app. The threading seemed to get weird in 10.4.

Brian Pylant wrote: > I am still facing the old problem where Apple Mail groups messages > into threads very oddly, with unrelated posted being grouped together > as a thread, and same-subject messages being split into two or more > threads. Why not try using a news reader. I read this group on Thunderbird which has quite a versatile way of aorting messages. It's still annoying when people startnew threads by replying though. -- Pete Thomas www.petethomas.co.uk Logic Tutorials, Hints, Tips, free Icons, Environments EXS Instruments (donationware) ***Please support my trek in the Andes in aid of APEC*** ***info & sponsorship: http://www.justgiving.com/petethomas***

On 27/02/2006, at 12:55 AM, Brian Pylant wrote: > [ perhaps try this http://logic-users.org/forums LUG Admin] > > > I am still facing the old problem where Apple Mail groups messages > into threads very oddly, with unrelated posted being grouped together > as a thread, and same-subject messages being split into two or more > threads. This has been a problem mentioned here many times. It is due to the fact that people creating a new thread do not use the new message command (Apple + N). Instead they hit reply to a message originally from another topic and then change the relevant details. What is not realised is that the threading system linking messages in the same topic together does not rely on subject line. It's more sophisticated than that - so if you hit rely to another topic and start a new thread the old threading is still embedded in their new mail and thus the fact that all us mail users get our threading screwed up. There have been many pleas on list asking for people to have better manners around this and not do it, but, as is often true of life in general people do not read clearly, or at all, or, do not have the decency to care. Peace ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Paul Najar Jaminajar Music Production www.jaminajar.com

On 27/02/2006, at 12:55 AM, Brian Pylant wrote: > Does anyone have any good solutions for this? I know I'm throwing > away messages I actually want to read, it's impossible not to without > not grouping by thread and reading *every* message, something I quite > simply don't have the time or inclination to do. In the view menu make sure you have Numbers checked in the Columns sub menu. Then it's easy to see what subject lines have more than one mail in the thread. I tend to read my mail with the bottom 2/3rds of the screen showing the content of the selected mail in the top third. This way if I click on a subject line that has more than one message in the thread, all the messages (subject line only) in that thread get display in the bottom section and it's easy to see if there's any rogue subject lines in there. By doing this and cross referencing with the aforementioned "number column" it doesn't waste too much time to make sure you see all the mails you want to see... Regards ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Paul Najar Jaminajar Music Production www.jaminajar.com

On Feb 26, 2006, at 5:15 PM, Paul Najar wrote: > > This has been a problem mentioned here many times. It is due to the > fact that people creating a new thread do not use the new message > command (Apple + N). Instead they hit reply to a message originally > from another topic and then change the relevant details. > > What is not realised is that the threading system linking messages in > the same topic together does not rely on subject line. It's more > sophisticated than that - so if you hit rely to another topic and > start a new thread the old threading is still embedded in their new > mail and thus the fact that all us mail users get our threading > screwed up. > > There have been many pleas on list asking for people to have better > manners around this and not do it, but, as is often true of life in > general people do not read clearly, or at all, or, do not have the > decency to care. > > Peace > > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: > Paul Najar > Jaminajar Music Production Paul, In my case - I had no idea that simply changing the Subject did Not change the thread! So - now I know. I am a guilty party. But I have learned the ways! Thanks - always good to find out something new. Dave Shirk Pamlico Sounds

On 27/02/2006, at 9:21 AM, Dave Shirk wrote: > > Paul, > > In my case - I had no idea that simply changing the Subject > did Not change the thread! So - now I know. I am a guilty party. > But I have learned the ways! > > Thanks - always good to find out something new. That's great Dave. My fear was that there may actually have been a new software bug further complicating this issue. I'm glad that's not the case. Kind regards ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Paul Najar Jaminajar Music Production www.jaminajar.com

>From: Pete Thomas <logic@petethomas.co.uk> > >Brian Pylant wrote: > > I am still facing the old problem where Apple Mail groups messages > > into threads very oddly, with unrelated posted being grouped together > > as a thread, and same-subject messages being split into two or more > > threads. > >Why not try using a news reader. I read this group on Thunderbird which >has quite a versatile way of aorting messages. It's still annoying when >people startnew threads by replying though. Anyone who replies to a digest will start a new thread. This reply is from a digest, so indeed, it probably is starting a new thread. I've been trying to reply through the web interface when possible to eliminate the problem. HW

On 26.02.2006, at 23:22, Paul Najar wrote: > I tend to read my mail with the bottom 2/3rds of the screen showing > the content of the selected mail in the top third. This way if I > click on a subject line that has more than one message in the thread, > all the messages (subject line only) in that thread get display in > the bottom section and it's easy to see if there's any rogue subject > lines in there. Additional hints: If a subject in the list is selected we can go up and down using the arrow keys. Arrow right opens the thread, arrow left closes it. Cmd U (=Apple U) on the parent line of a thread marks the whole thread as read. This way we can quickly step through a bunch of threads, just look into them or open them, select certain mails and mark the whole thread as read if it is not interesting for you. Everything without touching the mouse. And yes, dear fellows, from me too: please create a new mail if you want to write a new mail. It's quite easy to remember: "New" is for new and "Reply" is for reply :-) Apple Mail most likely completes the address if you just type "log" or "logi" into the address field. So creating a new mail is even faster than hitting reply, then overwriting the subject and deleting the quotes. ___ Peter Ostry

> There have been many pleas on list asking for people to have better > manners around this and not do it, but, as is often true of life in > general people do not read clearly, or at all, or, do not have the > decency to care. Or they just don't read every message, like all of us, which is really why we want clean threads in the first place - to delete what (we think) doesn't concern us. ;o) (BTW, in case anybody's wondering: The hidden header that remains when you hit reply is the "message ID", a random key that is generated for every new message, and can be used for tracing it in logs of mailservers, and for threading of course). :o) Maurits.

> A related question ...... what is the correct way to reply to a > message > when you are receiving the Digest? I usually just create a new message > and then paste in the relevant subject headers and quoted text. It's a > bit cumbersome though. > Hi Eli, I find the easiest way is to just highlight the message within the digest and hit reply. It then places that highlighted text in the message at the next quote level and then I just cut and paste the subject in the subject line... of course sometimes adding a RE: Best Regards, Matt _____________________________________ MATT MCKENZIE-SMITH MUSIC • AUDIO DESIGN • PRODUCTION PO Box 10395, Adelaide 5000, South Australia. Ph.+61 416 197 883 www.mattrixx.net _____________________________________

On Feb ,27, 2006, at 6:03 PM, logic-users@yahoogroups.com wrote: > Hi Eli, > I find the easiest way is to just highlight the message within the > digest and hit reply. It then places that highlighted text in the > message at the next quote level and then I just cut and paste the > subject in the subject line... of course sometimes adding a RE: Good idea. I just tried it with this message. It saves a step. Thanks. -------- Eli Krantzberg http://www.nightshiftorchestra.com Almat Productions

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, Eli Krantzberg wrote: > > >On Feb ,27, 2006, at 6:03 PM, logic-users@yahoogroups.com wrote: > >>Hi Eli, >>I find the easiest way is to just highlight the message within the >>digest and hit reply. It then places that highlighted text in the >>message at the next quote level and then I just cut and paste the >>subject in the subject line... of course sometimes adding a RE: > >Good idea. I just tried it with this message. It saves a step. >Thanks. >Eli Krantzberg Still, when replying to a digest... no matter the subject line, the thread is broken. Correct? HW

>> I am still facing the old problem where Apple Mail groups messages >> into threads very oddly, with unrelated posted being grouped together >> as a thread, and same-subject messages being split into two or more >> threads. > > This appears to be a problem in Mail.app. The threading seemed to > get weird in 10.4. Well we've established by now that people use reply to start a new thread, but indeed it is weird that threads with the same subject get broken up; it could be that some non-rfc-compliant (read: made by Microsoft) ;o) mailer ignores message IDs when replying, but Apple mail also threads messages _by subject_ even when they are completely unrelated. When I switched on threading in my inbox, I got one huge thread of mails with subject "Re: site" (a popular subject since I'm also a webdesigner) ;o) from people who do not even know each other. So let's say the threaded display can help order stuff but it's not something to rely on and it might not just be the posters who are responsible for that. :o) Maurits.

> This has been a problem mentioned here many times. It is due to the > fact that people creating a new thread do not use the new message > command (Apple + N). Instead they hit reply to a message originally > from another topic and then change the relevant details. Right, that's definitely an issue, one that I've mentioned several times (to no avail, people *still* do this despite being specifically asked not to). However, that's not the entirety of the problem, as I often see replies from other threads (not new messages). For example, I see two replies to "7.2 Expander Problem," one to "Logic Pro/MOTU 828mkII" and one to "Using Redmatica with EXS 24 Open in Tiger or Panther" grouped in this thread. I can't imagine that those folks would've replied to this thread to answer those other already-existing threads. Something else is going on here... Infuriating. Exasperating. Annoying. :o( Brian :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Logic Audio Pro 7.1 PowerMac G4 933MHz OS X 10.4.2 1 GB RAM MOTU 828mkII - driver v1.2.5 - CueMix v1.5 - firmware 1.0.1 - bootloader 1.0.1

On 01/03/2006, at 12:51 PM, Brian Pylant wrote: > For example, I see two replies to "7.2 Expander Problem," one to > "Logic Pro/MOTU 828mkII" and one to "Using Redmatica with EXS 24 Open > in Tiger or Panther" grouped in this thread. I can't imagine that > those folks would've replied to this thread to answer those other > already-existing threads. Something else is going on here... > > Infuriating. Exasperating. Annoying. Not that I'm trying to defend the mail program but possibly, the issue here is those replies that loose their thread are sent from members who receive the digest and reply to the thread from the digest, and as I think we've discovered if you reply to a post from within a digest the threading will be stuffed up also. Fully agree how annoying it can be. All those pesky little emails not behaving themselves well. The single biggest improvement I've made in mail handling in the at last 8-10 years where I've been receiving 100+ mails a day (currently around 280-300) is dumping the digests in favour single mails all sorted into their own folders via mail program rules. This way even if some messages do loose their thread it's not too huge a deal since they'll turn up within the next 40 or 50 within that folder... Regards ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Paul Najar Jaminajar Music Production www.jaminajar.com

> > The single biggest improvement I've made in mail handling in the at > last 8-10 years where I've been receiving 100+ mails a day (currently > around 280-300) is dumping the digests in favour single mails all > sorted into their own folders via mail program rules. This way even > if some messages do loose their thread it's not too huge a deal since > they'll turn up within the next 40 or 50 within that folder... Speaking of 'rules', nothing I do can get Apple Mail to pick out the LUG mails when they arrive - for some reason it doesn't see the "LUG" in the subject line, or the logic-users email address in any of the mail categories. How did you set up a rule that actually "sees" the LUG mail? My rules are working for other mail - I tend to use background colours to identify the different mail, which makes it easy to sort and see. cheers Ian

> Speaking of 'rules', nothing I do can get Apple Mail to pick out the > LUG mails when they arrive - for some reason it doesn't see the > "LUG" in the subject line, or the logic-users email address in any > of the mail categories. How did you set up a rule that actually > "sees" the LUG mail? My rules are working for other mail - I tend > to use background colours to identify the different mail, which > makes it easy to sort and see. It could be a combination of rules. Note the option that makes the filter stop checking other rules (I believe it's on by default for every new rule). If you have a rule that colors LUG mails and then doesn't check further rules, the rule that was supposed to put them in a separate folder will be ineffective. I filter using the from-address, and have my mailinglist rules before all others. Even before that, I delete mails from logic-users@yahoogroups.com with [LAW] in the subject. Maurits.

To all forum visitors, This is off-topic but a big musical issue which affects us all. I hope Admin will allow this post. SACEM (the French society for Composers & Authors) has launched a petition to protest against a draft law regarding music and the Internet. They write: APPEAL FOR SIGNATURE AGAINST "THE GLOBAL LICENSE" FOR CULTURAL WORKS ON THE INTERNET Ladies and Gentlemen, Members of the Parliament, At the time of the study of the draft law " Author's right and neighbouring rights in the information society" some of you have voted on december 21 for an amendment equalling any downloading of cultural works to private copying ; thus opening the way to a lump sum remuneration (called "Global License") for the creators and all those who bring life to creation. Although it seems essential to permit the Internet to offer better access to creation and to respect the freedom of Internet users, we cannot accept this at the expense of authors and artists. Should it be confirmed, this provision would be: * unfair for the creators insofar as their remuneration would virtually disappear, *inequitable in the distribution of the revenue because the plan calls for a distribution based exclusively on "surveys", which would exclude lesser known authors and artists, *disastrous for the financing of creation and new talents' as it would lead to the disappearance of legal sites, * fatal for the diversity and the renewal of the French musical works. France is the country which has invented the author's right, the Parliament cannot assassinate it. Therefore we are solemnly asking you to reverse this amendment. [/quote] Please visit this address and sign the petition: http://www.sacem.fr/petel/fwk/main.jsp The text above is the text of the English translation download on that page. When you have entered your details, click on the Valider button to submit your vote.

>SACEM (the French society for Composers & Authors) has launched a >petition to protest against a draft law regarding music and the >Internet. The correct link is: http://www.sacem.fr Then follow the link to: Author's right is in danger in France. Sign here

On 01/03/2006, at 7:22 PM, Ian Henderson wrote: >> >> The single biggest improvement I've made in mail handling in the at >> last 8-10 years where I've been receiving 100+ mails a day (currently >> around 280-300) is dumping the digests in favour single mails all >> sorted into their own folders via mail program rules. This way even >> if some messages do loose their thread it's not too huge a deal since >> they'll turn up within the next 40 or 50 within that folder... > > Speaking of 'rules', nothing I do can get Apple Mail to pick out the > LUG mails when they arrive - for some reason it doesn't see the "LUG" > in the subject line, or the logic-users email address in any of the > mail categories. How did you set up a rule that actually "sees" the > LUG mail? My rules are working for other mail - I tend to use > background colours to identify the different mail, which makes it > easy to sort and see. My mail rule for this kind of thing reads: if ANY of the following.... TO, CONTAINS, logic-users@ Move message to Logic Users (folder) Works fine...

On 01/03/2006, at 7:22 PM, Ian Henderson wrote: > Speaking of 'rules', nothing I do can get Apple Mail to pick out the > LUG mails when they arrive - for some reason it doesn't see the "LUG" > in the subject line, or the logic-users email address in any of the > mail categories. How did you set up a rule that actually "sees" the > LUG mail? My rules are working for other mail - I tend to use > background colours to identify the different mail, which makes it > easy to sort and see. Try adding a "List-Id" header and filter for that. michael