 | | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading —Todd Lehman
| | | | (...) Except cases where you do the "(was: ...)" thing, right? --Todd (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading —Christopher Lindsey
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Dan Boger
| | | | | (...) 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)
| | | | | | |
