Eric Stevens
Is 'breaking the thread' a new concept to you?

Sandman
Yep! I don't know how one "breaks" a thread.

No elaboration in this? How does one break a thread? It's an interesting claim from you, Eric. Because in one instance, changing the subject meant I "created a new thread" and in another instance where I did the exact same thing, I "broke the thread". What's the difference, according to you?

Eric Stevens
Apart from your devious detail twiddling, you maintained the subject in general but somehow changed it in detail.

Sandman
"Somehow"? I added a question mark, otherwise the subject was identical. No new meaning, nothing but one single character. Which according to you "breaks" the thread. I am wonder why.

Eric Stevens
You am wonder why. I am wondering at your wonder.

Sandman
Again - in two occassions have I changed the subject line, but kept the References header alone. In one instance you told me I had created a new thread, and in the other instance you claim I have "broken the thread". Why are they different? According to what RFC did I "break the thread"?

Eric Stevens
Presumably the RFC defining what a thread is that you have never been able to find for me. I will be able to answer your question when you come up with the RFC (and no, it's not RFC 5537).

THreads are usually broken by people who post an article under the same subject heading as another but post it as a new article.

Sandman
But wait - hold on here. You've told me that a "new article" (i.e. new thread, right?) is a post where there is a NEW subject.

Eric Stevens
I have given you no such definition of a new article.

Sandman
So posting an article under the SAME subject heading would - according to you - be to post in the SAME thread, would it not?

You're suggesting here that one can KEEP the subject, yet still post it as a NEW thread. How is that possible if threads are related only by their subject?

Eric Stevens
Message numbers are primary keys for the mesasge indexing system.

These primary keys must be unique. 'Subject', 'author', 'date of publication', etc are all secondary keys which need not be unique.

What you see on the screen depends on how the messages are sorted: on what use is made of the keys and how they are agregated.

An article bearing an existing subject line but with no list of references i.e. no list of prior articles can be treated as the begining of a new thread.

But you know all this: you just haven't thought about it much.

I am amused that you say you have asked me for my definition. I have several times asked you to point me to an official definition which supports your belief that a thread is defined entirely by the list of references. You haven't even pretended to answer that question as yet. I don't believe you can.

Sandman
I have pointed to the FACT that it is the *standard* way to do it, calling Agent non-standard. RFC's doesn't concern themselves in how clients display articles, they DO concern themselves in how posting sequences are kept in the usenet format, which is NOT by using the Subject header.

Eric Stevens
I wonder how many times you will have to repeat the word *standard* before one creates itself out of thin air?

Sandman
I have also PROVEN that Agent is non-standard in the way you claim it breaks up threads, since no other client does that. Well, among the clients that make up the vast vast majority of users out there.

Eric Stevens
You might think you mean 'non-standard' but, in the absence of a standard you really should be saying 'uncommon'.

As I have described above, it's a new thread. You posted your article as a new article without a list of references.

Sandman
So... References is what determines whether or not it belongs to a thread or not - not the subject?

You're really giving me mixed signals here, Eric. I think you're, as usual, just arguing for the sake of argument without thinking this through.

Eric Stevens
It's just too complicated for you.

Sandman
The post I linked to above has the EXACT samt subject as the post I replied to in my news client. And according to you, threads are determined by the subject header, yet here you're saying that while the subject is *exactly the same*, it lacks the *References* header in order to be part of an ongoing thread - I.e. what I have been saying ALL ALONG.

Eric Stevens
But then you have only been partly right. Where you are wrong is in insisting that the way I have configured agent to behave is wrong.

Sandman
As you can see, the subject line has nothing to do with what is considered a thread by the vast vast majority of news clients and news *readers* (i.e. people).

Eric Stevens
Have you any data? I bet you don't.

I suspect that you have never really thought about it or realised that there is more than one way to group messages.