Subject:
|
Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:34:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
227 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 06:50:07AM +0000, Tood Lehman wrote:
> 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?
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 changed... so I think that we should leave it in the same thread.
but it defenitly is something you want to add to whatever fuzzy logic thread
locator you write... :)
--
Dan Boger / dan@peeron.com / www.peeron.com / ICQ: 1130750
<set:1185_1>: Unknown (LEGO/SYSTEM/Castle/Ninja), '99?, 1 figs
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
