Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site desint.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!petsd!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!desint!geoff
From: geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: Random Junk (Really subject lines)
Message-ID: <114@desint.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 6-Jul-85 17:42:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: desint.114
Posted: Sat Jul  6 17:42:16 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jul-85 05:39:14 EDT
References: <1495@utah-gr.UUCP> <487@oliveb.UUCP>
Reply-To: geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning)
Organization: SAH Consulting, Manhattan Beach, CA
Lines: 24

In article <487@oliveb.UUCP> jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) writes:

>> Why do people generate subject lines like the above when writing
>> followups?

>[Jerry then points out that he does it so that people who have been following
>the original discussion will know to read the article.]

Another reason is newsreaders like 'rn', which will only follow a thread
of discussion based on the "Subject:" lines.  (Aside to Larry Wall -- how
difficult would it be to run the thread based on the partial ordering
provided by the "References:" line?)

>Maybe we need a new header ala:
> 	Subject: caramel sauce
> 	Originally: hot pepper oil
>	References: <1495@utah-gr.UUCP>

An excellent idea!  Rn and such readers could then follow the discussion
thread properly.  How about "Original-Subject:", though?
-- 

	Geoff Kuenning
	...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff