Path: utzoo!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: What should go in the References: line?
Message-ID: <49820@looking.on.ca>
Date: 19 Nov 89 08:30:34 GMT
References: <14619@well.UUCP> <49816@looking.on.ca>
Reply-To: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 36
Class: discussion

It occurs to me that if we can't stop people from breaking the references
line, can we at least define a standard for indicating that info has
been removed?

If we *know* that the line has been truncated or removed, we can usually
do some repair.

And the nice thing is, only a few sites have to go about repairing, as
everybody downstream gets the repaired article.

For example, if there is NO references line and a "re:" subject, we know
we need to repair.  We can usually search for the subject in other messages
in the group to find the root.

Or if that fails (or in addition) we can search for things like:
	"In <xxx@yyy>, foo writes"
to try to get the parent.

Or failing that, look at included text and try to find the parent(s) with
it.

In other words, repair is possible -- if we know we need to do it.  This is
too slow a process to do on every incoming article.

Unfortunately, even these repairs may not work if the parent of a
References: %i
article never arrives, or comes in late.  Sigh.


Perhaps people should use:

References: <DELETED@DELETED> %i

instead?   or <?> or somesuch.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473