Path: utzoo!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!asuvax!mcdphx!mcdchg!ddsw1!karl
From: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Just how useful is crossposting?
Summary: NO!  Brad is (gawd, I'm saying this?!) right on this one
Message-ID: <1989Nov18.165018.11206@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: 18 Nov 89 16:50:18 GMT
References: <47326@looking.on.ca> <1989Nov14.195710.11774@NCoast.ORG> <48887@looking.on.ca> <1989Nov17.231128.20369@rpi.edu>
Reply-To: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger)
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Mundelein, IL
Lines: 64

In article <1989Nov17.231128.20369@rpi.edu> tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes:
>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 <sqrt[-1]@foo.bar>.
>Keeping redundant data sets around is not necessary to accomplish that.

NO NO NO NO!

PLEASE do as Brad has suggested.

There are myriad reasons, but picture this one for starters:

o Each thread of discussion is a file (saving lots of disk space when you
  have only one overhead of <x>% per >thread< rather than per posting)
o Each followup and main item has an entry in a database (Item-Id's)
o Followups are attached as they come in to the relavent article base.

Now, how do you find the "base"?

Well, with either the parent or the "base" item you can find it -- providing
that you (1) have ALL the followups prior to the one you just received, AND
(2) you don't mind going back <n> levels in the search.

Lose one followup in the chain and you may be >screwed<.  Let's say you have
this set-up:

Item: <416@hosedsite>
Resp: <417@hosedsite>
Resp: <418@hosedsite>

Now you get <666@newsite>.  It has as a references line:

	References: <418@hosedsite>

All is well.  We can find that.

Now assume you lost (or haven't yet gotten) <418@hosedsite>.  How do you
figure out how the item in question is to be filed?

If you keep the base item in the references line this problem disappears.
Now you need nothing other than the base (which you had better already have
received, otherwise the followup isn't likely to make too much sense!).

We have newsreading and posting software which does exactly this.  It trims
the references line, but keeps the immediate parent AND the base item.

It works great -- except when some idiot hacks up (or worse, DELETES) the
references line.... then you get parallel discussion threads which contain
the same discussion but are in different places (yuck).

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910]
Macro Computer Solutions, Inc.		"Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"