From: Forrest J. Cavalier III (mibsoft@epix.net)
Date: Mon Aug 16 2004 - 14:31:11 CDT
> Being an untructing person I prefer to simply have an unambiguous test
> to identify what is and isn't a followup. So the software can make a
> positive identification, because computers are good at that, and humans
> can read the standard and decide if an article should have a references
> header. Humans are crappy at that, but we have nothing better.
>
Bill, I am with you on positive determination on received messages. So
please tell me what you see as ambiguous about the phrasing "A message
includes a References header if and only if it is a followup." Doesn't
that give the recipient what they need to determine if a message is
or is not a followup?
Do you agree the standard must instruct the creation of messages, not
just the reception? What is it you would say to the poster? Don't
they need to determine if their message is a followup? They can't use
your References test, since they are creating the message. (I think
this is what Mr. Stanley means when he wrote about the PURPOSE, not
the presence of the References header being the prime determining
factor.)