Sandman
In article <8brml9543jufk333hn863g3ovfc3a2n91r@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

Tony Cooper
Anyway, the whole idea of changing a subject line is to re-direct the conversation to something new. So, a new thread.

Sandman
No, same thread, new topic. "thread" says nothing about content.

Eric Stevens
But 'Subject' says a lot about content.

Sandman
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 Stevens
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: ".)

Sandman
I am well aware of all the NNTP RFC's, I've built my own NNTP service, rememeber?

The above quite clearly supports my position and not yours. A post that is in response to another post (a followup) should have a References header, and by *default* should begin with "Re: ", but the user can edit it.

Still the same thread.

Eric Stevens
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.

Sandman
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.