Subject:
|
Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Oct 2000 06:50:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
111 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Christopher Lindsey writes:
> I'd say that's perfectly in line with with RFC 850, Section 2.2.6.
> It clearly says that a References: headers is "required for all
> follow-up articles" and that the first four characters of the
> Subject: header should be changed to "Re: " if they aren't set
> already.
Except cases where you do the "(was: ...)" thing, right?
--Todd
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
| (...) It sounds like if the References: header is used to trace threads, then the Subject: header should begin with "Re: ". I suppose the original intent was that new threads would be started if the Subject: was changed (but that's pure conjecture (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| | | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
| (...) that's one place where we have a choice to make... does re-subjecting make a new thread, or is it still a child of the current thread? most of the time, by the time someone re-subjected a post, it's 3-4 posts AFTER the subject has been (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
| (...) I'd say that's perfectly in line with with RFC 850, Section 2.2.6. It clearly says that a References: headers is "required for all follow-up articles" and that the first four characters of the Subject: header should be changed to "Re: " if (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
