Garth, I'd like to continue this discussion, but I feel loops starting
to happen - thanks for your input, but like I said, I'm not wanting to
push it that far.
Regards, sTu.
Garth Wallace wrote:
> "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.
>
>
>
