From: Frank Ellermann (nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de)
Date: Mon Aug 16 2004 - 19:04:50 CDT
Bill Davidsen wrote:
> you open the door to (a) a post with a references header
> which is not a followup (what, then, is it?
It could be the intended begin of a new thread. Or just the
literal meaning of "reference" (a pointer, See-Also). Or a
"multi-parented" reply (2822 In-Reply-To).
> or (b) a followup which does not have a references header.
That could arrive at a gateway (web2news, mail2news), and it
should be handled if possible (2822 algorithm), otherwise it
would be better to call it "reply" instead of "followup".
> 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).
Using References + Subject should allow to identify threads
in almost all cases correctly.
Bye, Frank