From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Tue Aug 10 2004 - 12:16:11 CDT
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net):
>If there isn't a References header line in the precursor than the
>precursor isn't a followup.
You have a penchant for stating the obvious non-sequitor. We aren't
talking about the precursor.
>That does not mean that the reply to it isn't a followup.
No, the fact that the "followup" starts out without a References header is
what means it is not a followup, according to the proposed definition.
>Wrong. It is the fact that the followup agent adds the References
>header line that makes the new article a followup.
Wrong. According to the proposed definition, a followup CONTAINS a
references header. If one has to add that header, then it does not already
contain one, and is thus not a followup.
>I noted your contrary-to-fact claim in the matter.
Which fact is contrary? We already have a definition (which is actually a
definition of what a followup is and not just what header it contains) and
it is a better definition than the proposed circular one. I see nothing
contrary to fact in any of that. The only thing contrary to fact is the
ridiculous suggestion that we define a followup not by what function is
serves but by what header it contains.