From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Thu Jul 01 2004 - 00:07:16 CDT
Frank Ellermann (nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de):
>You've seen what some newsreader do,
I've seen lots of code do lots of things, not all of it matching any
definition anyone would want to use.
>and you've seen the
>s-o-1036 text about subject changes starting a new thread,
If you are referring to the text I think you are, you've conveniently
forgotten that it says "possible", which leaves the determination up to
the one place where thread information is actually found.
>and you found no better formal definition in a standard.
I found the one you proviced, as I recall, which equated "the start of
a thread" with "the first mid".
>You mentioned the first Message-ID and the start of a
>thread, and that's 8 lines before the note about subject
>changes and new threads in s-o-1036.
So, you think that it being 8 lines prior to something else means
it doesn't matter? And have you forgotten the ruling of the de-facto
chair that NOTES are not normative?
>Therefore UAs are free to display threads based on References
>_and_ In-Reply-To _and_ Subject, and that's still the best
>"definition" we have (if we need it, dubious),
Agents are free to display articles in any order the want to. When they
claim that one article is a sibling to another based on anything but
actual thread information, they are wrong.
>You wanted to define threads based _alone_ on References:.
Wrong. What I wanted is irrelevant.
>If that's not more the case then there's no more problem.
Somehow I doubt that statement.
>Do you know any newsreader with this feature ?
Yes. Trn presents the article to the user for editing prior to posting,
and it is trivial, absolutely TRIVIAL, for the user to remove a References
header if it does not belong there.
>> Because YOU brought it to the list. You thought is was
>> fodder for public discussion
>| Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 23:46:17 +0200
>[...]
>| P.S.: I'm almost sure that this mail won't make it to the
>| UseFor list, therefore I send some CCs. Don't panic.
I didn't post that, you did. You brought the issue to the list. Don't
whine at me when I respond.
>See above, you continue to ask questions about seven words in a
>P.S.,
Whatever. You brought it up, in public, as if it was somehow important.
Now you want to "forget it" when you don't get the milage out of it you
wanted. Hmmmph.