From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Sun Jun 15 2003 - 23:54:53 CDT
Thorfinn wrote:
> On Wed 11 Jun 2003 at 01:02:30PM -0700, in <Pine.LNX.4.53.0306111005070.27539@a>,
> John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> wrote:
[...]
>>I can also detect Subject drift, without resorting to the Re: hack. It
>>isn't that hard.
>
>
> No, it's not that hard. But it *isn't* possible to do it without
> actually having access to the "Subject: " header of the directly
> previous article in the "References: " header.
[...]
> *sigh* It's not a "critical feature". However, the presence of the
> "Subject: Re: " mechanism *does* provide a functional difference that
> "References: " + "Subject: " does *not*.
>
> It enables someone who has access to an article *without access to its
> parent article* to be able to tell if the subject line has been changed.
Maybe it's just because it's late, but I don't follow your argument.
Case 1:
parent article has
Subject: Re: foo
child article has
Subject: Re: foo
Case 2
parent article has
Subject: Re: foo
child article has
Subject: Re: bar
and (as indicated by parent/child) the child article in each case has
a References field pointing to the message ID of the parent.
Now, please explain exactly how "*without access to its parent article*"
you are "able to tell if the subject line has been changed".