From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Aug 16 2004 - 06:39:49 CDT
In <411D0F54.2050409@epix.net> "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft@epix.net> writes:
>Any objections to this....?
> A "followup" is a message which is related, supplementary, or posted to respond
> to another message. A message includes a References header if and only
> if it is a followup.
No, that is too wide. For a start, it implies no 'direction' (it would
allow A to be a followup to B and B to be a followup to A).
If you want a changed definition of "followup" (I don't, but some do",
then what is wrong with the one I posted here on Aug 5 in your "webster"
thread?
A "followup" is an article containing a response to the contents
of an earlier article (its "precursor"), or which is otherwise
intended to be grouped with that article for purposes of display
(e.g. as part of a multipart posting such as a FAQ).
It is based on a wording you suggested earlier (and goes with the original
References-header text). There is a similar alternative wording which could
be applied to the References-header.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5