Garth Wallace wrote:
> "Stuart Summerville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>Garth Wallace wrote:
>>
>>>Newsgroup threading is done by Message-IDs in the
>>>References header, as per the spec, AFAICT.
>>>
>>I think more choices in the way threading is done would be useful.
>>
>
> What would you suggest? The References header
> is the only reasonably dependable way of determining
> threading--that's what it's for. It contains the MID
> of its parent post, and usually several ancestor posts.
What about the option to start a new thread if the subject changes
significantly? When people change a thread from <thread A> to <thread b
(was thread A)> then I think that warrants the distinction.
> You can't get good threading from the subject because
> a) A thread starts with a post with subject "<original
> topic>" and all replies in the thread that aren't
> explicitly retitled have the subject "Re: <original
> topic>", so after the first reply you can't determine
> parent posts
Surely those prefixes can be detected...? or learnt...? I believe
Outlook threads by subject in this manner (properly?).
> b) Any reply can be arbitrarily retitled.
So draw the line at a degree of modification required to trigger a new
thread. Or maybe give the respondent the option of forcing a new thread
during composition (just an idea..).
I'm not wanting to push this idea right through, -I just think that both
methods have their pros/cons - & getting the best of each would be useful.
sTu.
