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
> >together.
>
> 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
own thread.
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 brozen@torah.org
Director of Technical Services (410) 602-1350
Project Genesis http://www.torah.org/
References:
|
|
