 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) the problem is, we're dealing with mailers that are just not RFC compliant. Which is why they don't have the references: header in the first place... and we're trying to cludge something around their shortcomings, just so the pretty threading (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) how about, instead of rejecting such messages, make a "soft" threading feature... and activate it only for mailers you know are broken (lke that Internet Mail Service, Eudora, etc)... Just write a little proggie that will attempt to guess what (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Incorrect group posting [was RE: cartoonnetwork.com is having an online contest]
|
|
(...) Yea, that's better. Frank (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Incorrect group posting [was RE: cartoonnetwork.com is having an online contest]
|
|
(...) I still think this is a great idea. I would put them under .year.#### though. --Todd (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
This broken thread garbage has got to stop. Example: (2 URLs) countless other examples in the .loc.au group.) The question is, how do I detect this broken mailer that Ben's using? It reports itself as: X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Incorrect group posting [was RE: cartoonnetwork.com is having an online contest]
|
|
(...) Yes, down here we get a limited range [It took some effort even to get the entire football range this year...we were only initially to get the ground itself.] To all those .us people complaining about .eu only sets, and .eu people complaining (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general)
|
