On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 at 20:59, Nick Simicich wrote about "Building threads...":
> There is actually more to it than that, You have to figure out what refers
> to what and reassemble the threads or you are being worse than useless. At
> the very least, you have to chain according to in-reply-to first, than time
> of arrival within subject. This is necessarry to plug the side
> conversations like this back into the thread.
Well, that depends on how much "matching" you want.
Do we really want side conversations like this to plug into the original
thread? I would vote for "no" -- because, if it's a side conversation then
it really shouldn't be placed with the original thread. It would actually
confuse issues, because if I then sent a message on the original subject
AFTER this one -- then I would have two different subjects being threaded
Not only that, it's simpler to not do that.
> I used to have a very large and complex piece of code that did this for
> netnews converted to e-mail that I was converting to a digest format. With
> netnews, I also had to do partil subject matches looking for stuff like the
> above, then sort and find the oldest threads, then put those in digests.
If we were to implement this, then I would still like the "simpler"
threading. We could possibly make both an option when it comes to deciding
on how to send out the digest:
digest_sort = subject-simple, subject-advanced, date
Brock Rozen email@example.com
Director of Technical Services (410) 602-1350
Project Genesis http://www.torah.org/