Re: Re: Re:

From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Mar 03 2004 - 09:29:46 CST


In <40453248.4040908@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:

>.... On further
>consideration, a simple MAY is probably inadequate; we should
>probably specify that if that is done, the followup agent SHOULD
>request confirmation from the user. The reason being to reduce the
>number of instances where the same subject is kept in a thread
>which has mutated to discussion of peripherally related matters,
>then to completely unrelated matters. The idea being to force
>the user to think about what subject to use. However, that is
>not a syntax issue, is only peripherally related to semantics,
>and does not affect network operations. Consequently any such
>text should go in document #3 -- Charles, please make a note of
>that for future reference when we get to that document.

Noted, but I doubt the idea will get far. Given that at least 75% of
articles on Usenet are followups, users are unlikely to to take kindly to
agents which force them to do that every time.

-- 
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



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7.