Path: utzoo!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!sun-barr!rutgers!mcdchg!ddsw1!karl
From: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: What should go in the References: line?
Summary: News propagation imperfect; software can't use info it doesn't have
Message-ID: <1989Nov20.161226.24294@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: 20 Nov 89 16:12:26 GMT
References: <14619@well.UUCP>
Reply-To: karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger)
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Mundelein, IL
Lines: 58

In article <14619@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us> writes:
>Email from Brad and the posting from Karl reveal that the only reason
>they think there is a problem with  References: %i  is that their
>software is badly written.  A competent programmer will have no
>difficulty handling a message tree with only immediate parent
>references.  A competent programmer will realize that this is all he
>or she can reasonably depend on having.  The net should not feel
>obliged to bear the burden of "% interp buffer overflow" and > 256
>character lines just so that Brad and Karl can get by with simple
>but fragile code.  The net is not a simple place, guys.  I'm sorry,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>but you'll just have to adapt.
>
>I have been using  References: %i  for three years, everyone I have
>set up to use netnews uses it too, and we will continue to use it.
>If you don't want *your* message trees fragmented, then fix *your*
>software.

I'll be more than happy to modify our software (we do it all the time) when
you explain how a computer can manage to mind-read when parts of a tree are
lost.... and all the software has is a reference to another article WHICH 
HAS NOT AND NEVER DOES ARRIVE HERE.

Now how does my system, or any other, figure out which thread that article
belongs to?  "Guessing" based on the subject line is a bad answer, as it's
often user-modified, and may be repeated even when the actual subject is 
DIFFERENT.

Hell, I can't mind-read.  How can a computer manage it?

My solution for now?  DUMP THE OFFENDING ARTICLE.  Sure, I could file it as
another "base"..... but have chosen not to do that, as I'd rather have fewer
articles in the message base than 50 threads all on the same subject.

I've no problem with handling immediate references >if< propagation is
perfect.  It isn't, and that is something you are IGNORING.

Bad coding?  No.  Operating under the (correct) assumption that articles are
delayed, lost, and mangled?  Yep.

You aren't going to get >256 character lines if you trim the references line
to ONE parent article and the BASE ITEM.  You also won't get them if your 
software does the recommended thing with oversize lines and uses the 
continuation capabilities (hint: try "<tab> xxxxxx" after the first line;
that's in the RFC too).  

Our software deals with both situations in a rational manner, and I bet 
Brad's does too.

Blaming Brad's and my software as an example of "poor coding" is a bunch of
nonsense when you can easily output something reasonable in the reference
line.

--
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"