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