From: Seth Breidbart (sethb@panix.com)
Date: Wed Feb 04 2004 - 21:40:23 CST
John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> wrote:
> Seth Breidbart (sethb@panix.com):
>
>>In _my_ newsreader, proper operation of the Subject: header allows for
>>almost-correct threading when the References: header is missing, as
>>sometimes happens (especially in robomoderated groups).
>
> Almost correct?
Yes, the threading is almost correct. That's the best that the
newsreader can do with the limited information it has.
> If the articles are broken, then there is no "almost
> correct", they are broken.
The articles are broken. A human, applying intelligence (or a
newsreader willing to do way too much work parsing attribution lines
and looking for matches to quotes) could thread them properly, exactly
where they belong. Existing newsreaders thread them reasonably well
but not perfectly. That's much better than threading them completely
incorrectly, which is what using only the References: header would do.
> If we want to play guessing games, why not just remove References
> and go with structured unstructured headers for all information?
We don't _want_ to play guessing games, sometimes we _have_ to play
guessing games. Or do you believe that anything this group does will
magically cause all software to conform?
>>I consider that to be part of the "news system".
>
> No, how you want your articles displayed is NOT part of "the news
> system"
If the display of articles isn't part of the news system then people
will care even less about the news system than now (if that's
possible).
>> So what? It's useful for clarifying the _meaning_.
>
> Except it does not do so.
Yes it does. It just doesn't do it _perfectly_.
> According to this clarified meaning, tell me: does the
> subject-content "Re: foo bar nockers" have a back-reference or not?
It probably does.
> How do you know?
I'm just guessing. Want to find a random sample of 5,000 articles
with subject-content beginning with "Re: " and place a bet on each
one?
> How does the opposite answer not also fit the definition?
It does fit the definition, it just isn't as likely to be the case.
>> So the ones I'm familiar with assume that it's back-reference,
>
> So they don't have to assume a thing, they look at the References header
> and know that the article is not only a followup, but to what other
> article it is a followup.
So magically all postings will conform once we publish.
> No guessing involved. And no, we aren't talking
> about trying to fix broken messages by guessing at what they meant --
> that's lunacy. They are broken. They aren't articles.
Yet most _people_ who read netnews want to see them.
Seth