Sandman
It does so by default.

Eric Stevens
It's got to have one setting or another and Forte have picked the one which makes the most sense.

It is amusing (?) that you prefer them to be all mixed up together.

Sandman
It is not at all amusing that I want threads to be kept together by the sequencing provided in the posts, as defined by the RFC. When a poster replies to another poster, I want that reply to be a "child" to that post, not displayed as a new thread, since it's part of an already existing thread.

Eric Stevens
Which is a roundabout way of saying all mixed together.

Sandman
No. A lot of hand waving from you, and no actual "definitions" other than the ones I've provided.

Eric Stevens
At the moment what makes a thread is in the eye of the beholder.

I've already given you my view.

You say it's wrong but even after me asking you five times you have failed to produce a source document which defines a thread.

It is likely that there is no single source definition.

Sandman
Eric Stevens 04/25/2014 <fljll9djo3hrhstou6n1456s4c87qhntjp@4ax.com>

"But irrespective of how your news reader responds, you started a new thread."

If your post had been "Well, according to some, changing the subject may be considered starting a new thread", we wouldn't have this discussion, because that's a perfectly valid claim, since it's subjective.

Eric Stevens
Valid now is it? It's not that long since you were describing a newsreader which behaved that way as broken.

Sandman
So?

Eric Stevens
Make up your mind.

The selection of news readers which you posted the other day sequence the thread differently from each other.

Sandman
No, they sequence it identically to each other, putting my post as a child to Andreas' post, as per the RFC.

Eric Stevens
We are talking about display, not sequencing.

Sandman
So why aren't they in a chronological order in your news client. Look again in the date column of this screenshot of yours:

<https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31088803/Agent%20Thread.jpg>

As you can see, the dates are NOT chronologically sorted, since your news client group threads by conversation, where one post may occur later in the last, but be posted earlier.

Eric Stevens
What you are seeing are small branch threads.

Sandman
Case in point, the first four posts were posted on the 29th, the next the 27th and the next four the 28th.

<>

Is that what you call "chronologically"?

Eric Stevens
Yes. The first message in a new thread goes to the top of the display, in reverse sequential order. That way I don't have to scan down through zillions of threads to find new ones. Messages within threads (once they have been expanded) are listed in sequential order so you can read them as a conversation, from beginning to end.

Sandman
<>

THAT is a chronologically sorted list of messages.

Eric Stevens
I'm astonished that you should think anyone would want it that way.

There is no indication of threading and subjects are all mixed up.

I know you find this difficult to understand but for the purposes of a useful display a thread is not determined solely by the 'References:' header.

Sandman
According to...?

Eric Stevens
People who read them. The 'References: ' header is fine until somebody branches off with a subthread.

Sandman
I need some cites here from these people. Can you name them? This is an explicit claim from you, you know. You're saying that "people who read them" has determined that a thread is not defined by the References header.

This will be regarded as hot air and hand waving (read: Bullshit) until you provide such support.

Eric Stevens
You know my opinion.