Email thread analysis
deq14_Part0027 Write-up (Zadeh)
Introduction: The following is a formal exploratory write-up of “deq 14_Part0027.pdf,” consisting of two sections. Section 1 characterizes the thread in terms of descriptors and seeks to elucidate the logic behind the different styles present in the thread, as well as the pattern of indentation and nesting of emails. Section 2 focuses on the content of the thread and includes both a chronology of the exchange and an overall summary.
Section 1: Descriptors
Chronology of exchange:
9/29/15, 9:06 AM - D Walling → “Dr. McMahan and Kettering team” Subj: None Contents: DW is planning on hosting a press conference with MDEQ and EPA about fixing Flint’s water problems and wants to use Kett U for a facility to hold it in. Mentions this is on a “short timeline” and that this is “confidential at this point.”
9/29/15, 12:30 PM - S Davies (Kett U) → D Walling Subj: None Contents: SD says JS will be in touch.
9/29/15, 5:20 PM - J Stock (Kett U) → B Wurfel Subj: None Contents: “Sorry, I was mistaken. [SD] is correct. Perhaps another time?”
9/30/15, 8:02 AM - B Wurfel → J Stock (Kett U)? Subj: None Contents: “Would it change anything if the event was Friday afternoon?”
9/30/15, 9:09 AM - J Stock (Kett U) → B Wurfel Subj: None Contents: JS says Friday works and suggests a facility to use.
10/1/15, 1:39 PM - B Wurfel → J Stock (Kett U) Subj: None Contents: BW asks if they are good to use facility for press conference the next day, and if BW can call JS this afternoon.
10/1/15, 2:42 PM - J Stock (Kett U) → Kett U people Cc: B Wurfel, D Walling, S Davies (Kett U), T Ayers (Kett U) Subj: Re: Kettering Host City-State-EPA press conference Contents: JS is informing his Kett U people that they are holding a press conference 1/2/15 at 1:30pm. Asks about logistics. Says BW assures him it is an important announcement that “affects our community in a vital way.”
10/1/15, 2:53 PM - B Wurfel → GOV, DHHS, K Tommasulo (DEQ) Cc: D Murray (GOV) Subj: Fwd: Re: Kettering Host City-State-EPA press conference Contents: BW says they have a location (referring to thread). Asks KT if she can “find an address for the news advisory”?
OVERALL SUMMARY: DW is in communication with persons at Kett U to organize a facility for their press conference.
Questions: What is BW referring to when he says “an address for the news advisory”? Conclusion: Section 1 demonstrates that there is a certain pattern to be elucidated in the way that the emails appear. The pattern of indentation, taken together with the location of signatures in the thread, makes clear that a) every email, besides the parent email, contains a formal or informal signature of some kind and b) formal (pre-programmed) signatures appear in line with the body of the email. It is yet unclear why this thread is punctuated by “On…” phrases and why these lines are sometimes in line with the body of text and sometimes not.
deq14_Part007 Write-up (Zadeh)
Section 1: Descriptors
Findings
Indentation occurs when there is a forwarded message. In some cases this is marked by the text “Begin forwarded message,” but not always. In email (C), LSS is forwarding emails (B) and (A) to SB, but there it is not marked as a forwarded message in the same way at with (F) and (E). Email (C)--and (B) and (A)--also have headings in a different font from the rest of the document, suggesting that LSS is using a different email client which a. has a different forwarding style and b. has a different typeface. LSS’s client possibly denotes forwarding with a halftone line, since it is bracketed at the top and bottom by a halftone line. Since the other two forwards--(E) and (F)--were both forwarded There are 3 forwards in this email thread, the bodies of which are boxed in Fig 2. The purple box was fwded from BW → DM, the red box fwded from BW → LS, the green box fwded from LSS → SB. The attachment originates from email (D).
Discussion
This thread is particularly useful for understanding the descriptors associated with forwarding. Here, there are three instances of forwarding: in email (F), BW is forwarding; in email (E), BW is forwarding; and in email (C) LSS is forwarding. In the former two that are forwarded by BW, the forward is denoted by the text “Begin forwarded message:” and an indentation, while LSS’s forward is denoted by halftone lines. It is clear that BW and LSS are using different email servers/clients. In addition, there are other descriptive differences--including typeface and heading style that make this clear. This thread can be divided into two halves. The first (red) are all in BW’s client style because he is doing the forwarding. In these emails, the header of the parent email (F) is different from the headers of emails (E) and (D), but this is likely because it is the parent email. Beyond this header, the red-boxed emails are all in TNR font and are consistent in header style. Emails (F) and (E) both end with “Sent from my iPhone,” so they are likely formatted by the Apple mail app. Although email (D) does not end with this same signature and may not be from the Apple mail app, it is forwarded by BW, so its header is consistent with the Apple mail app header. The body of email (C) is Comic Sans, which could be indicative of a different client but more likely is indicative of a spunky sender who changed the font. Email (C) is preceded and followed by halftone lines and the font and headers are different. The font is likely Arial and the headers contain no full emails, just names (except for in email (A), where there is a “mailto:” hyperlink). That emails (C) and (B) are formatted the same likely indicated that LSS and SB are using the same email client. Essentially, an email’s header formatting and forwarding signals are dependent on the email client that comes after it in chronological time.
Conclusion
Analysis of this thread points to a couple of key findings. The style of email headings and forwarding style is dependent upon the client of the email that comes after it in chronological time (and before it spatially), because this sender’s client is the one that takes the email and formats it. For example, email (C) is not formatted like email (D), because email (D) is preceded by an email from BW so it has been formatted by Apple mail, while email (C) is preceded by email (D), which is (most likely) not Apple mail. It remains unclear what email servers LSS and SB are using. Furthermore, the formatting of email (A) is not explained. Email (A) should be formatted by email (B), which is from BW but may not be Apple mail because it does not end with “Sent from my iPhone.” So, it might be that BW is on a desktop computer. He may still be using a different client than LSS and SB because email (A) includes a “mailto:” hyperlink and the others do not. I think the next steps may be exporting emails from different clients to explore the types of formatting exported by each one. I also think that it would be helpful to come up with some sort of decisive model for email formatting.
deq14_Part008 Write-Up (Zadeh)
Introduction: deq 14_part0008.pdf consists of two attachments (see deq 14_part0007.pdf) which appears to have been printed out and scanned. The first two pages are separate from the last page as far as their page numbering.
Section 1: Descriptors Since this thread was printed out, this document contains page numbers in the header and dates in the footer that suggest that the first two pages are separate from the third page.
Emails A and D are similar in format. Both start with name of recipient at header, followed by bolded line. In D, the bolded line is barely visible ostensibly due to scanning. They have identical “From...To…” headers. BUT, they have different typeface in the body. Email A’s typeface includes a different typeface for the copy-pasted portion (Comic Sans, which S Butler has typed in before). Emails B and C are similar in format. They have identical typeface and “From...To…” headers. The first two pages are a set, separate from the last page, as indicated by their page numbers The first two say “Page 1 of 2” and “Page 2 of 2” respectively, while the third says “Page 1 of 1.” The first two pages contain a footer with the date 6/20/2012--about a month after the exchanges happened. The third page contains a footer with the date 9/30/2011--the day after this email was sent.
Section 2: Chronology of exchange
What is happening? D Worthington responds to J Markstrom’s (unincluded) question with a quote (copy-pasted) from S Butler (DEQ). S Butler says ??? 7 months later, R Freeman says he is working with JM to pull info needed for application “referenced above” (in email A). He says they are having trouble getting EM Brown to sign it because he needs Treasury approval. WV says they can take an electronic copy as a placeholder, but says they need it in by end of day that day. Ends with “Good luck.” A few hours later, RF emails saying that Flint has decided not to pursue “DWRF funding for Project No. 7310-10” for FY 2012 due to budgetary concerns.
Findings: It appears that the parent email’s From/To heading is usually spaced in two columns, followed by threaded emails spaced in one column, right-justified. This could be a way to distinguish between parent and threaded emails.
Questions: Why does the third page not have a Bates number? Why does the first and third page start with the recipient’s name on top of line?
deq14_Part0014 Write-Up (Zadeh)
Descriptor Notes -- DEQ 14_Part0014 pg1 (Bates #: 000033): “From” to “Attachments” are bold + left justified. Values following the colon after “From” to “Attachments” are indented. Names under CC are divided by semicolon, except for the last one (no semicolon). RE: means a reply. Attachment not hyperlinked. Chronologically, earlier emails are at the bottom of the PDF. Parent email: 1st in doc, last chronologically Bold black line to start first email Other emails: In reverse chronological order in doc Separated by half-tone line Outlier: 2nd email in thread is data, and 1st chronologically; not separated by line. Possibly exported from Outlook, because in News Release, there is a (in tiny size font) error message that says “Outlook prevented automatic download” of the image Emails contained within email (see: email #6) are not separated by half-tone line
Questions: Why are some names followed by “mailto:” hyperlinks? Why does the font size slightly change in some of the messages? Why is the first email in the thread (top of page, email #6) formatted differently (spacing) than the others?
deq14_Part0110 Write-Up Zadeh
Introduction: deq 14_part0110.pdf ostensibly contains attachments, but none that I can find in the deq 14 folder.
Section 1: Descriptors
Emails A, B, and D have the same From/To (F/T) headers. Email C’s F/T header appears almost the same, but is slightly smaller (?) All of the emails have different typefaces for their bodies. Email A appears to be TNR. B is a larger typeface, halftone. C contains no body text. D appears with the same typeface as F/T headers of A, B, and D. E appears with the same typeface as A, B, D, but in halftone. There are halftone lines between B/C, C/D, and D/E. All lines appear to be slightly different in weight (although B/C and D/E are very close).
Section 2: Chronology of exchange
What is happening? MG says he has attached report, which they should review before holidays. MP says to AR they should look at report to see if they have “everything requested to date.” AR forwards this message to KT. KT asks AR (and other DEQs) to review an interim response she has crafted in response to their letter (what letter?). She asks if Nov 9 is correct date of letter. SB confirms Nov 9th date.
Findings: It appears that the parent email’s From/To heading is usually spaced in two columns, followed by threaded emails spaced in one column, right-justified. This could be a way to distinguish between parent and threaded emails.
Questions: Why are all the typefaces different? Why are the lines where they are? Two occur before forwards, but one does not.