Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bfmny0!tneff From: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: Proliferation of "Re^n:" in subject lines Message-ID: <14433@bfmny0.UUCP> Date: 3 Jul 89 14:56:18 GMT References: <272@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> <89Jul2.110144edt.10370@neat.ai.toronto.edu> <3583@looking.on.ca> Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) Organization: ^ Lines: 21 In article <3583@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >While it is anti-social of NN to [insert "Re^n:" into Subject lines], >perhaps it's not a bad idea in the long run. > >For in the long run, it is the References line that should link messages >and threads, not the subject line. When newsreading software comes along that fully supports threading via the References line, it will automatically be able to tell you how "deep" a reply is (2, 6, etc) without recourse to parsing the Subject line. So NN's behavior will always be either obnoxious or unnecessary. Numbering followup depth in the Subject line only works if everybody does it, anyway. Most newsreaders don't, so it's absolute horse***t and a waste of time except perhaps in a closed in-house newsgroup if everyone in a shop uses NN. Since it exists, though, it would be nice to patch 'rn' to survive it. -- "My God, Thiokol, when do you \\ Tom Neff want me to launch -- next April?" \\ uunet!bfmny0!tneff