On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 at 10:01, Nick Simicich wrote about "Re: Building...":
> >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.
Obviously you seem to think that my opinion has no place.
I could care less what news readers are doing -- I still think there is
merit in my idea. We are not interested in side conversations being
patched into the original thread, instead we like to consider them their
And since a digest is frequently used as a "once-a-day" feature, as
opposed to Usenet which shows you a listing that could go back for days --
the need for such a feature in digests (unless you request digests less
frequently than once-a-day or your list is processing tens or hundreds of
messages a day) is less than it is for Usenet.
This is not an archiving program we're talking about (which would have the
need for that; Usenet readers are very similar to archival retrievers) --
it's something that spits out whatever it has and then forgets about it.
Brock Rozen email@example.com
Director of Technical Services (410) 602-1350
Project Genesis http://www.torah.org/