"Stuart Summerville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
When people retitle replies, they generally
just delete the original subject and type in
their own, which is usually totally different
from the original as far as wording goes.
Only a conscientious few (such as myself :) )
add the "[was Re: such and such]" to changed
subjects. Why code the threading based on a
condition that will be triggered 90% of the
time?
> > 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?).
Nope, you really can't.
Say you have a post with subject "Foo".
This post has three replies, each with
subject "Re: Foo". The first one of these
replies also has three replies, each with
subject "Re: Foo". The second has no
replies. The third has four replies with
subject "Re: Foo" and one with subject
"Bar". Now, given a post with the subject
"Re: Foo", how do you determine which
post is its parent? You can't. All you can
do is tell that its ultimate ancestor is
"Foo".
Some (broken) newsreaders do give a reply
to a "Re: Foo" the subject "Re: Re: Foo" or
"Re^2: Foo" or something like that, but those
are the exception to the rule (and are breaking
the netnews spec)
AFAICT Outlook threads by the References
header (it's a broken newsreader, but it's
not *that* broken).
> > b) Any reply can be arbitrarily retitled.
>
> So draw the line at a degree of modification required to trigger a new
> thread.
Again, it would be rare that that wouldn't
be triggered.
> Or maybe give the respondent the option of forcing a new thread
> during composition (just an idea..).
There already is. It's called "new message".
If you don't want something to be a part of
an existing thread, you shouldn't be using
the reply function. It defeats the whole
purpose.
