From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
Date: Thu Aug 12 2004 - 09:48:41 CDT
Seth Breidbart wrote:
> John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> wrote:
>>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.
If you don't define a followup as a post with a references header then
you open the door to (a) a post with a references header which is not a
followup (what, then, is it?), or (b) a followup which does not have a
references header. I find both of those unacceptable, since I can't
identify them with software, and therefore clients can't thread them
correctly (whatever that means).
John may not like a hard definition, but I proposed it because I haven't
seen any other which avoids the (a) and (b) cases above. Software can't
know what a poster intended, it can act on a required header.
--
-bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me