Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!UTORONTO!MICHAEL From: MICHAEL@UTORONTO.BITNET (Michael Wagner) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook Subject: Re: Two more items for the wish list Message-ID: Date: 17 Jan 90 17:08:22 GMT Sender: MAIL/MAILBOOK subscription list Reply-To: MAIL/MAILBOOK subscription list Lines: 31 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 17 Jan 90 15:11:32 CET from >while I would prefer after sorting according to subject and date in >ascending order to have them in the sequence shown first. I think, with all due respects, that we cannot force the subject and date fields into a duty to which they were not intended, without a lot of 'stand on your head' code. Lets step back and find out what we really are trying to do. I would guess that you want to be able to read the messages in the order that corresponds to which messages are replies to which. The best way of doing this is to use the 'in-reply-to' fields, where available, and to use time/date/subject/timezone/cokebottle heuristics only when better information isn't available. There are, of course, User Agents that don't produce standard In-Reply-To fields, so this won't always work, but part of the reason for the lack of standardization is that no one has cared up to this point. If some software actually used the field for something, there would be impetus for people to clean up their act. The problems with using time and subject are: times aren't set reliably in many environments, and subject names get reused. These are, in my opinion, substantial problems that will not be solved by us. >I hope, this time at least someone is recognizing my point, even if she >or he doesn't agree. Did I understand you correctly? Michael >Sincerely > Rainer