At 01:27 PM 10/28/99 +0200, Brock Rozen wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 at 20:59, Nick Simicich wrote about "Building
>> 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
The world seems to differ with you. Such news readers as TRN and so forth
do this commonly. The point is that they messages are copied to the list,
but because of the fact that side conversations frequently occur at a
different rate, they have to be patched in using something other than time
order. So, the use of the headers and partial subject matches.
>Not only that, it's simpler to not do that.
Well, it is simpler for me to not turn on my computer in the morning and
when I do that it always works exactly as I intended.
>> 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
As I pointed out, it is not just subject. Basically, if I'm not mistaken,
it ends up being the same stuff that mhonarc does when it puts threads back
That which does not kill us, makes us stronger.
That which does kill us makes us smell stronger, after a few days, anyway.
Nick Simicich mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org or (last choice)
http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World!