"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 24/04/2012 23:43, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message

I don't even need to cater for people that like to thread by reference
rather than subject.
You know how to do either so live with it.

Not causing me a problem old fruit...

So why are you arguing.
Your reader does the same as everyone else's.
it threads on title.

Well obviously not...

otherwise each of those name changes would result in a new thread, and as
you can see, they don't:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/images/9/90/AUsenetThread.png

A different title is a different thread end of story.

You may like it to be the case, but I suggest you go read the RFC and
understand how it actually works.

I don't care how it works, its how the majority use it that matters.
Lets face it SMS is a standard for the networks to send notifications to
users for things like voice mail, but that isn't how its used by the
majority.
Someone like you probably doesn't send SMS messages because that's not what
the standards said when it was designed.


On my software you press K to kill a whole thread, and shift K for a
sub thread. It then removes it from my view, and I won't see any
further posts to it, even if the name of them changes.

And what does your reader think is a sub thread? How does it decide?

A sub thread is the post you are reading, plus any followups to it,
and their descendants ad-infinitum.

So if I killed the sub thread starting with your post which I instead
chose to reply to here, I would lose your post, plus (at the time of
writing) Mr Chapmans, and your followup to him. However I would not
lose TNP's next post since that is not a descendent.

How does it know, the thread reference is the same.

Perhaps its magic den, but it seems to get it right every time... fancy
that!

...or maybe its because it includes a whole series of references, not just
a pointer to one message, but the complete ancestry. So it can see
immediately which message was a response to which response to which
response and so on until you reach the root of the thread.

If you take the example pictured above. The references line in that
message is:

References:























The thread reference is so you can get your reader to go back and fetch the
messages should you decide to read them.
Its a throwback to the days of limited bandwidth.
These days its quicker to just go and fetch all the headers.

As *most* people don't start new threads and just change the title when they
want a new thread and *most* people sort on the title then changing the
title is the same as starting a new thread to *most* people.

Even pedants like you sort on title or you would end up with reading one
post from sub-thread A followed by B followed by A followed by C, etc.


This is also why decent software lets you click on the thread reference
breadcrumb trail to follow the sequence of a conversation back step by
step.

But for no good reason, you just sort by title and click the one above.
the only use for the thread breadcrumb trail is to get the posts if they are
missing.


Since it is considered good practice to change the name of a thread
when the subject drifts to a dramatically new area, news readers *by
design* try to ensure that anything that is a reply rather than a new
post, will get correctly threaded.

Once its out there it stays out there.

True but not relevant.

If I could I would kill all your junk.

I doubt it, you only come here for the arguments.

You argue, in case you haven't noticed you are doing so now.

Just trying to educate you, and also highlighting that if you make
bogus claims in public, you can expect people to challenge you on them.

There is nothing bogus about what I claimed.

You mean apart from it being inaccurate and wrong?

Not from the POV of *most* people.
No more than using SMS in a different way to what the standard said.