Quite probably, "after some amount of time, zombie threads should auto-close"

As the genie said in Aladdin, "I can't bring people back from the dead. It's not a pretty picture. I don't like doing it!"

Okay, okay, okay ... after some reasonable period of time, perhaps every thread should automagically become locked.

After all, we're dealing with very-rapidly changing technology here. "Anything that was said about 'Linux' even last year" might no longer be relevant ... such that "a sufficiently-old thread, even if resurrected, would no longer be technically correct."

Can we count upon Our User Customer to notice the date-stamps and to understand its significance? I think not, because we could easily mislead anyone who – innocently – didn't know any better. Instead, we should prevent the posting of new comments to these threads. (And, if the forum software allows it, maybe use a thread-status such as "Archived," rather than "Closed.")

If the OP wishes to start a new thread that back-references the old one, then of course "s/he is entirely free to do so." This alternative will not be misleading to a newcomer.

This has been brought up before: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ds-4175526241/

As a reminder, for old threads the quick reply is completely disabled and there's a large bold red message that says "Please note that this thread has not been replied to in over 6 months. Please ensure your reply is still relevant and timely".

--jeremy

Would CAPTCHA be ?feasible? to add to LQ UI for this? (make it harder to skip notice_msg)

My suggestion: 21-45days old: current msg; >45days: captcha (&if poster <Sr, post->Mod 1st).

Yes cosmetic but significant UX impact: embarrass goodNoob; fastGuruS miss necro; catch spammers.

Current example: poster hit 3 threads. Maybe add 'necroPost' keyword to this+other Title[?]

Today's example (ironically 'hit' #4belowPerson! [tho not #4's 'fault' at all!]

The unfortunate *reality* is that people don't-read/skip-warnings
(unless you 'GRAB their hand': Capita for example)
Didn't I read: "Communication is the responsibility of the SENDER"[?] Ask TCP

OT p.s. suggestion: Jeremy:
remove "Unfortunately...necessary," here (but leave it in its '[threat]twin' here)

I've bookmarked this thread so I can reply to it again in 10 years' time. ;-)

I would say that this thread is a good example of where the OP could have necro-posted to the old thread where this was brought up before...