On 25/04/2012 23:52, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...


Sorting by subject is pointless unless searching for a particular
message etc, since it won't cope with threads that change subject in
the middle, as this one has done several times.

What are you talking about?

Given the huge amount of detail I gave you in the message to which you
replied (and snipped), it should be very clear.

However, lets try this excerpt from RFC 1036 (Standard for Interchange
of USENET Messages)

"2.2.5. References

This field lists the Message-ID's of any messages prompting the
submission of this message. It is required for all follow-up
messages, and forbidden when a new subject is raised.

Implementations should provide a follow-up command, which allows a
user to post a follow-up message. This command should generate a
"Subject" line which is the same as the original message, except
that if the original subject does not begin with "" or "", the
four characters "" are inserted before the subject. If there is
no "References" line on the original header, the "References" line
should contain the Message-ID of the original message (including the
angle brackets). If the original message does have a "References"
line, the follow-up message should have a "References" line
containing the text of the original "References" line, a blank, and
the Message-ID of the original message.

The purpose of the "References" header is to allow messages to be
grouped into conversations by the user interface program. This
allows conversations within a newsgroup to be kept together, and
potentially users might shut off entire conversations without
unsubscribing to a newsgroup. User interfaces need not make use of
this header, but all automatically generated follow-ups should
generate the "References" line for the benefit of systems that do
use it, and manually generated follow-ups (e.g., typed in well after
the original message has been printed by the machine) should be
encouraged to include them as well.

It is permissible to not include the entire previous "References"
line if it is too long. An attempt should be made to include a
reasonable number of backwards references."


You are saying the exact opposite of what really happens.
Most users don't care about getting replies to one of your threads in
the order of the thread.

I find most people tend to follow conversations best when they hear (or
read) all the various contributions to it in the order in which they
actually occurred. Since several concurrent conversations can be going
on at once in different places in the same thread, it makes little sense
to try reading them in the order your machine happens to receive them.

However if this is how you work, it might go some way to explaining the
woeful level of comprehension you demonstrate.

they want it grouped into posts that follow a subject.
There have been lots of such threads in uk.diy.
I really don't know why you want to read these things out of sequence
after a subject has been changed.

Indeed, which is why I don't use software that thinks a change in
subject alone should necessarily denote a whole new thread - especially
when the message still includes references to what was replied to, along
with quotations and attributions from another message which is now
detached from it.

We aren't going to agree, so there is no point in continuing.

That has never seemed to stop you.

You do what you want and I will do what I want.
It makes no difference anyway.

FU set.

That worked well.





--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/