Path: utzoo!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!tale From: tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) Newsgroups: news.software.b Subject: Re: Just how useful is crossposting? Message-ID: <1989Nov17.231128.20369@rpi.edu> Date: 17 Nov 89 23:11:28 GMT References: <47326@looking.on.ca> <1989Nov14.195710.11774@NCoast.ORG> <48887@looking.on.ca> Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Lines: 17 In <48887@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: Brad> Please don't only include the parent article in the references Brad> line! If you must trim it down, then include at the very least Brad> the 'root' article and the parent. I think there was a move Brad> afoot to modify the RFC to say that. Why? Inheritance makes keeping any but the most recent reference around unnecessary. I am looking at article <3@foo.bar> and see one person quoted, the one who wrote <2@foo.bar>. <2@foo.bar> referenced <0@foo.bar> but no reference was made to it except through some indirection. When I back trace through the articles referenced by the Message-IDs I find the parent of the thread was . Keeping redundant data sets around is not necessary to accomplish that. Dave -- (setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))