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