Subject:
|
Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Oct 2000 07:10:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
112 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?
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 on my part). So
taking it a step further, items should really only be threaded iff
the Subject: is prepended with "^[Rr]e:\s".
But since there's no RFC about the actual use of threading in
archivers, etc., I'd say do whatever works best for whatever
situation. :)
I now feel that I'm starting to babble, so it's off to bed for me.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
