Available Programme has `available' in the Future.

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Vangelis,

> I received this private e-mail from Ralph Corderoy:

(I think it's widely considered impolite to make private emails public.
:-)

> > Ralph wrote to the list owner:
> > > I replied to Vangelis's
> > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/get_iplayer/2015-May/007595.html
> > > changing the subject and was informed the message awaited
> > > moderation.  That was a while ago and it's not yet appeared on
> > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/get_iplayer/2015-May/thread.html
> > > Could you see if it's still waiting.  I changed the subject to
> > > help those that come searching later, like I did, so it would be
> > > nice if it reached the archive.
...
> Please, DON'T CHANGE THE SUBJECT when you are replying to a message of
> an existing thread; this is why the list software rejected your post;
> Please read (and heed) rule 3 of the list netiquette:
> http://david.woodhou.se/email.html

Here is rule 3.

    3.  Ensure your references are correct
    The email standard (RFC 2822) says that all replies should have
    References: and In-Reply-To: headers which contain the unique
    message identification of the message to which the reply is made.
    There are two ways in which this is generally abused:

      • Some broken mail programs will send a reply with no References:
        or In-Reply-To: header, causing threading information to be
        lost.
      • Sometimes people have been observed to select an existing
        message on the mailing list, reply to it but modify the subject
        in an attempt to start an entirely new thread.  If their email
        client is behaving correctly, the References: and In-Reply-To:
        headers mean that their message is _not_ a new thread as they
        intended, but appears as a continuation of the original thread.

I did not violate this rule.  I deliberately did not want to start a new
thread.  It was important that my reply got the context from being
threaded as a reply to the existing thread in the archives.  I merely
wanted to change the subject given you'd diagnosed the issue so that
others searching the archives, as I did before posting, had a better
change of finding it.

Changing the subject mid-thread like this has been common on many
mailing lists and Usenet newsgroups for decades, one sometimes sees the
old subject live on for a little as `New. (Was: Old.)', and is distinct
from lazy people replying to a random list email to start a new thread,
which I agree is a modern problem given modern mail-user agents hiding
email addresses.  Mailing-list archivers are happy with changing
subjects, using the email's other headers to thread and not just the
subject text.

Cheers, Ralph.