Google| Subject | Re: Will Tony apologize?? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 04/30/2014 09:43 (04/30/2014 09:43) |
| Message-ID | <slrnlm1ai2.gm8.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (2d & 15h) > Sandman |
In article <b6d0m91vk0gufbcgq5vuste8sqv4i83l61@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
Each screenshot has a big red square around what they make that is the standard; they use the references header to sequence articles.SandmanEric Stevens
No, that's the point. Not differently. The same. They list threads the same. Differently means that they do it in different ways, which I have not shown. I have shown that news clients show it the *same* way. The exact opposite of what you just wrote.
Please identify for each news reader what it is they do the same that makes it a 'standard' in your opinion. Please explain what it is that Agent does that is different and wrong.
Here they are again, note the big red square:
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>All clients thread the articles based solely on the References header. Whether or not you change the subject in each and every post is of no concern to any of these, they would thread them correctly either way - using the RFC-compliant method of sequencing articles.
It's not what I "prefer", clearly the SUBJECT has changed on that particular subthread, but they're all part of the same thread, given the fact that using the sequencing you can trace very post back to one single non-reply (i.e. the start of the thread).Eric StevensTony CooperSandman
He slides past his earlier claim that Agent is "broken".
How so? Not threading posts according to the sequencing provided IN those posts makes it broken to me.
I wondered whether we would get to this. So, if after a number of messages on subject A some swings over to subject B and signifies that they are now talking about something different by changing the subject header, you would prefere to have the two different subjects continue all mixed up in the same thread.
Well you might, but I prefer to have the new subject displayed as a separate thread so that I may read it or ignore it as I see fit. So too a lot of other people.What you prefer is of no concern to me or the discussion. You told me this:
"But irrespective of how your news reader responds, you started a new thread."
Which has nothing to do with what you prefer, you explicitly said that chaning the subject starts a new thread, regardless of how one's news reader deals with it. That is blatantly false.
-- Sandman[.net]
04/14/2014-
