Google| Subject | Re: nospam still not admitting to an error (was: The closest we'll get to nospam admitting to an err |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 01/25/2016 10:54 (01/25/2016 10:54) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-b73fe8709cdfcfc029f45faa4247cec9@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (13h & 36m) > Sandman |
In article <1bmbabh478m2chg7pjlk5fk67qatg0cea4@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
You are hell bent on dragging up this old argument again? Why? What is the purpose of this? What do you imagine you're gaining? I have now replied to you three times without joining you in your "argument", but as you seem to insist on being proven wrong again, here goes:Eric StevensSandmanEric Stevens
So why are you doing this all over again? You were proven wrong back then and I would have no problem proving you wrong again using the same facts. Why dig up arguments from the past like this?
Just to demonstrate the logicacl flaw in your claim that the only correct way to construct a thread is to rely on a feature, the use of which is optional.Don't wind this argument up again or you will further irritate PeterN. Just accept that there is more than one way of looking at the matter.Sandman
I am not the one "winding up" this argument again. You are. And there isn't a matter of "looking" at it. You made an incorrect claim that I disproved. Do you want me to disprove it yet again?
You have strange idea of 'proof'.
Here is one of your explicit claims:
Eric Stevens Re: Will Tony apologize? (was: Re: Colonial Photo & Hobby) 04/25/2014 <fljll9djo3hrhstou6n1456s4c87qhntjp@4ax.com>
"But irrespective of how your news reader responds, you started a new thread."
That is you explicitly stating that changing the subject line creates a new thread. You were 100% unable to substantiate this explicit claim, and then you also claimed this was "the standard":
"You can write software to do anything you like. That doesn't mean that it conforms with a standard."
I then proceeded to show you that this is incorrect by displaying how threading is displayed in *all* major news readers:
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>At first you didn't understand in what way these screenshots showed that threading is done by the References header, and I'm not sure you ever did.
Then you said there needed to be some sort of RFC that dictated how threading is done, but that's not how RFC works - they don't care how messages are displayed to the end user. Nevertheless, they do mention this in RFC 5322, section 3.6.4 Identification fields:
"The "In-Reply-To:" field may be used to identify the message (or messages) to which the new message is a reply, while the "References:" field may be used to identify a "thread" of conversation."
At that point, you did a nospam and quietly left the thread. And here you are dragging it up again for reasons unknown.
Your explicit claim was proven incorrect. The References header is used for sequencing articles. Whether or not a news client uses this for its display mode (pretty much every single one does) is irrelevant to your incorrect claim.
-- Sandman
01/06/2016-
