Could you have a go at sorting your newsreader, please? Whenever you do a followup, it adds another 're:' at the beginning of the subject line, which then shows up as a separate thread.
Ta very much.
- posted
16 years ago
Ping Lurch
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
From here, Lurch's posts look fine
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
I'll second that - not Lurch's problem as his posts only have one "Re:" here as well.
John
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
On Sat, 26 May 2007 11:08:04 +0100, The Wanderer mused:
Can't seem to see anything that would change that, although Agent threads them all properly for me so I can't really see what I'm testing.
Some other threads appear fragmented though so I'm not sure who\what causes it, could be newsreader\server at one end or the other playing with message id's\subject lines. Dunno tbh, any pointers I'm happy to change soehting but I don't know what.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
On Sat, 26 May 2007 15:13:25 +0100, "John" mused:
They don't actually, this one has 2 'Re:'s here, but it still threads properly.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Same here, using Thunderbird.
The OP's using 40tude newsreader which I have to confess I've never even heard of: is it a bit unusual and maybe the more likely cause of the issue?
David
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Well, if you mean it sees one subject line of
and another of
and thinks they're different threads, then yes. But I'd argue they have become different threads because the subject line has changed. Perhaps this Newsreader is the only one in step? ;-)
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
On Sat, 26 May 2007 16:34:38 +0100, The Wanderer mused:
If used 40tude in the past and swapped back to Agent, can't remember it being too unorthadox.
But Ping Lurch and Re: Ping Lurch are different threads, as is every reply to every topic if you look at it that way.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
I wouldn't thinks so, coz as a general principle, newsreaders recognise as a subject reply.
So a reply to
coming in as
is recognised as a reply to and is threaded correctly.
When a reply comes in as
it seems to be treated by Dialogue as a reply to a thread with a subject line
Which leads full circle back to Agent which is inserting the additional 'Re:'.
I've only noticed the problem over the last few days, although on looking there are one or two other posters who are adding an additional 'Re:', which makes me wonder if there's been a recent update to Agent.
Would be nice if there's someone out there who can throw a bit of light on the issue by way of RFC compliance.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Go into setting general , misc and add "Re: Re:" as a valid reply indicator.
Steve
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
On Sat, 26 May 2007 17:46:04 +0100, The Wanderer mused:
As I say, Agent does it too on some threads, not sure why etc... so I'm in the dark as much as you really.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
This is getting silly: Re:Re;Re:.
If you were to repond to this Lurch, would it pick up another Re: ?
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
I had a quick look, but it appears to be a bit of a mess, the question is should threading be enforced only off the ref's header, or also using the subject. Using the subject allows you to break a thread by changing the subject, eg "blar blar blar (was Re: old subject), but others seem to say that only the refs count.
Certainly agent seems to be acting in a way that no other newsreader is.
(in my other post I should have added that a group reload is needed to rethread everything)
Steve
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
RFCs 977 and 2980 apply for NNTP but that does not cover much on the message format itself (2980 covers some). RFC 1036 covers the format of messages themselves. The relevant section is:
2.2.5. ReferencesThis 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 "Re:" or "re:", the four characters "Re:" 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.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
On Sat, 26 May 2007 17:18:52 GMT, "clot" mused:
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
On Sat, 26 May 2007 11:08:04 +0100, The Wanderer mused:
OOI, is this a recent ocurence or has it always done it?
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
It's your newsreader that's broken. It should be threading on the "References:" header, not the "Subject:".
Mind you, Lurch's might be breaking the References: header itself.
Either way, it's nothing to do with the Subject:
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
No. That's not how it works.