Subject | Re: Will Tony apologize? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) |
From | Sandman |
Date | 04/26/2014 19:15 (04/26/2014 19:15) |
Message-ID | <slrnllnqj5.v9e.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Eric Stevens |
Followups | Eric Stevens (4h & 54m) |
Well, it can, but sure - the Subject should be related to the content, which is why it's sometimes a nice service to change the subject to reflect the current content of the subthread.Eric StevensTony CooperSandman
Anyway, the whole idea of changing a subject line is to re-direct the conversation to something new. So, a new thread.
No, same thread, new topic. "thread" says nothing about content.
But 'Subject' says a lot about content.
If you go as far back as even RFC 850 you will find:
"The Subject line (formerly "Title") tells what the article is about. It should be suggestive enough of the contents of the article to enable a reader to make a decision whether to read the article based on the subject alone. If the article is submitted in response to another article (e.g., is a "followup") the default subject should begin with the four characters "Re: " and the References line is required. (The user might wish to edit the subject of the followup, but the default should begin with "Re: ".)I am well aware of all the NNTP RFC's, I've built my own NNTP service, rememeber?
No one even thought that someone might want to continue the thread but with a different subject. You change the subject - you start a new thread.Incorrect. Changing the subject is often done to reflect what the current subthread is about. It does *NOT* create a new thread. A new thread is one that does not have content in the References: header. This is how USENET works.