Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site oliveb.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!oliven!oliveb!jerry From: jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: Random Junk (Really subject lines) Message-ID: <487@oliveb.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 20:17:29 EDT Article-I.D.: oliveb.487 Posted: Wed Jul 3 20:17:29 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 05:43:48 EDT References: <1495@utah-gr.UUCP> Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca Lines: 30 > Why do people generate subject lines like the above when writing > followups? Today in net.cooks I saw one that said > Re: hot pepper oil (really caramel sauce) > =Spencer ({ihnp4,decvax}!utah-cs!thomas, thomas@utah-cs.ARPA) I can only say why I sometimes do it. Many times a followup article refers to the original article but not the original subject. This leaves me with two options. 1. Use a new subject that describes the current discussion. 2. Use the old subject. The problem with (1) is that readers who were following the old discussion may not realize that this is a followup to it. The problem with (2) is that readers can not tell from the old subject whether the article contains something they might be interested in. So I compromise and combine the old and new. It is not a problem of not being able to control the subject line. If it was then I would not have been able to add the (Really ...". Maybe we need a new header ala: Subject: caramel sauce Originally: hot pepper oil References: <1495@utah-gr.UUCP> Actually the use of "Subject" is a hangover from the days when this all worked via mail. A "Title" would be more appropriate. Jerry Aguirre @ Olivetti ATC {hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!jerry