On Fri, 24 May 2002, Michael Fowler wrote:
> Based on empirical evidence (that is, I looked through some saved messages
> in my mailbox) and RFC822 the In-Reply-To: header consists of the Message-Id
> being replied to. Given that, you could trace down to the original message
> through the chain
on Sat, 25 May 2002 00:14:11 GMT, Michael Fowler wrote:
> Based on empirical evidence (that is, I looked through some saved
> messages in my mailbox) and RFC822 the In-Reply-To: header consists
> of the Message-Id being replied to. Given that, you could trace down
> to the original message throu
On Friday, May 24, 2002, at 03:06 , Felix Geerinckx wrote:
> on Fri, 24 May 2002 21:10:29 GMT, Drieux wrote:
[..]
>> as was the 'traditional mainstream family values based model'
>> of early usenet news groups
>
> I hope your not implying that usenet is a thing of the past (because it's
> not
On Friday, May 24, 2002, at 03:54 , Felix Geerinckx wrote:
> Not if the References are missing. You would e.g. never now whether a
> reply was to the original article or to another reply in the same thread.
Good point there - since in the case of my using things
like Mail::Mailer et al, to sho
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 10:54:57PM -, Felix Geerinckx wrote:
> on Fri, 24 May 2002 22:47:24 GMT, Michael Fowler wrote:
>
> > It seems to me that by looking at both the References: and
> > In-Reply-To: headers you could accurately reconstruct all of the
> > threads.
>
> Not if the Reference
on Fri, 24 May 2002 22:47:24 GMT, Michael Fowler wrote:
> It seems to me that by looking at both the References: and
> In-Reply-To: headers you could accurately reconstruct all of the
> threads.
Not if the References are missing. You would e.g. never now whether a
reply was to the original ar
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 10:06:13PM -, Felix Geerinckx wrote:
> Traditionally, threads are not reconstructed by looking at the subject
> beader, but at the references header. Unfortunately, since this *is*
> basically a mailing list (which fortunately has a nntp interface), a lot
> of these
on Fri, 24 May 2002 21:10:29 GMT, Drieux wrote:
> so, on average, half the user's are not nice enough to
> even offer up a 'why thank you'.
I wouldn't say that. A lot of thank you's are sent by private
communication (at least that's my experience). Unfortunately, many times
these thank you
On Friday, May 24, 2002, at 11:50 , Felix Geerinckx wrote:
> Yearly posting statistics for perl.beginners - 2001.
[..]
> There were 4374 (26%) original articles, and 12269 (74%) replies
> (articles that started with 'RE:' in their subject line).
>
> 926 (42%) authors posted only one article.
[..
