Eric Stevens
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 16:58:55 -0500, PeterN <peter.new@verizon.net> wrote:

PeterN
On 1/24/2016 4:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens
On 24 Jan 2016 09:48:07 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:

Sandman
In article <jed8abthsp5obu1c85dc4f66b5idehgqi4@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

nospam
it has a different subject heading.

Sandman
So?

Eric Stevens
As far as the reader is concerned, you have changed the subject and it's now a different thread.

Sandman
This again, Eric? You got your ass handed to you last time via screen shots, RFC's and a multitude of links.

Eric Stevens
That's your opinion.

Sandman
No opinion included. You made an explicit statement back then that was disproven. No opinion needed, it was just factually incorrect.

Eric Stevens
What was made clear was that there are two ways of looking at the subject and I use the conventional method of going by the header setting out the thread topic. You go by the chain of references which most people never see. You are welcome to your method just as 'we' are welcome to ours.

Sandman
"I" don't have a "method". Threads are defined by the References header as per the RFC. This is why the vast vast VAST majority of news clients show it this way. You just happen to use the only known client that doesn't, and you have formed your own personal opinion based on its non-adherence behavior. Which is fine, you are free to your own opinions, but you shouldn't make explicit statements based upon them.

Eric Stevens
Your definition of threading is not compulsory. Section 2.2.5 of RFC 1036 https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1036.txt states:

" User interfaces need not make use of this header, but all automatically generated follow-ups should generate the "References" line for the benefit of systems that do use it, ..."

Note the use of the word 'should' as opposed the use of 'must'. It's not compulsory.

We have been over all this before. There is no point in going over it again.

PeterN
So why respond. WTF is the importance.

Eric Stevens
So why are you putting your oar in?