Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!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: <1989Nov20.010701.10486@rpi.edu> Date: 20 Nov 89 01:07:01 GMT References: <47326@looking.on.ca> <1989Nov14.195710.11774@NCoast.ORG> <48887@looking.on.ca> <1989Nov17.231128.20369@rpi.edu> <1989Nov18.165018.11206@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <14930@bfmny0.UU.NET> Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Lines: 26 In <14930@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: Tom> The two extreme positions "keep only the latest reference" versus Tom> "keep the whole chain regardless of length" are not the only Tom> workable options. A compromise is possible: keep the root ID and Tom> the last up-to-N parent ID's. Good. And as with your example I think 4 makes a good N, for five total Message-IDs. [Tom, what's with your software? There were several blank header lines in the article that arrived here.] In <49820@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: Brad> Perhaps people should use: Brad> References: %i Brad> instead? or or somesuch. This sounds good too. Does anyone have any problems with: References: <...> or can we start hacking on that now? Dave -- (setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))