From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com)
Date: Thu Mar 07 2002 - 09:30:57 CST
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <3C839B4F.5E9BA759@cisco.com> Martin Djernaes <djernaes@cisco.com> writes:
> >Instead of using pseudo magic words/keys for Re: was: etc. the newsreader
> >could keep an extra field in the header maintaining the original or last
> >subject. If it's altering the subject with Re: it should keep the original
> >subject in this alternative field. The same logic can be used for a
> >previous subject (was), where the newsreader can insert the previous
> >subject so others can display what the subject was.
>
> Yes, that might be an interesting extension to deal with the "New subject
> (was original subject)" situation. But not as a substitute for "Re: ".
I wish this had come up earlier, I think it's a good idea to have a
(something like) Previous-Subject or some such, but I doubt it can be
done quickly, and it's not THAT useful to justify a delay.
-- -bill davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me