From: Seth Breidbart (sethb@panix.com)
Date: Tue Aug 10 2004 - 12:25:48 CDT
John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> wrote:
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net):
>>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.
What is this "starts out" stuff? Is there really a difference between
a followup agent that starts by creating an empty file (clearly, with
no References header) and then appends stuff to it that includes the
References header, and one that starts by creating a file with the
References header already in it? How can anyone (who doesn't have
very good hooks into that operating system at that moment) tell the
difference?
We (should) care about the format of the (proto-)article, not the
process of generating it.
If I save an article to a temp file, then use a posting (not followup)
agent, and insert that article as quoted, with an appropriate
References header, etc., then is my 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.
Well, it isn't a followup until I added it, and it is a followup after
I added it. But until I give the "post" command, it isn't even in the
news stream, so who cares what it is? Before I give that command,
it's already a followup, and remains one.
> 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.
A suggestion cannot be contrary to fact. Neither can a definition.
Seth