In article <9ld38q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Garth Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Stuart Summerville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > Garth Wallace wrote:
> > >"Stuart Summerville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
-snip threading is done via References-
> > >>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.
You missed his point -- he wants a "new" thread to be generated when
the Subject changes (other than the addition of "Re: ").
This is done by some other clients, and has it's uses.
Given References headers which indicate a thread goes like this
John Doe: Z is great
Frank Doe: Re: Z is great
Susan Doe: Re: Z is great
Jane Doe: Y is great and aren't family squabbles fun?
Mark Doe: Re: Y is great and aren't family sqaubbles fun?
It would be shown as:
Jane Doe: Y is great and aren't family squabbles fun?
Mark Doe: Re: Y is great and aren't family sqaubbles fun?
John Doe: Z is great
Frank Doe: Re: Z is great
Susan Doe: Re: Z is great
I.e. when the Subject is changed, the threading no longer indicates
that they are part of the same thread.
--
J.B. Moreno
