brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/13/89)
Here are some additional, easier, ways that I have thought of to deal with the references line question. a) Define a special message-id <?> which means, "this message refers to some message, but I'm not sure what." It would go at the front of a References chain. b) If software absolutely can't find the parent chain for an article it puts this <?> in. (I still don't like this) c) A patch to inews is made that detects either "re: " messages with no references line, or lines that have <?> in them. This inews checks the newsgroups the article is posted in for articles that match the subject line. If it finds one, it inserts the References line for that article into the chain, replacing the <?> This modified inews need only run at major feed sites. They will repair broken chains from smaller sites that don't bother upgrading. This should fix most of the problem. Of course, these 'orphaned reponses' 8-) may well get linked up with the wrong chain, but at least the root parent will be there. -------------------- Proposal #2 Right now inews programs are allowed to reduce the size of the References: line. The next release of the usenet article format will specify that the root message-id always be kept, that it is advised that the immediate parent be kept, and that deletions should come in the middle of the chain. I propose we add something more to the message-id syntax: Currently the syntax is <unique@domain>. If this flag is set, then the message would be considered a sub-root message. Inews programs would be advised not to delete sub-root message-ids from a chain, and if they must be deleted, all other ids should go first, and then the most recent sub-roots. A message gets the sub-root flag if the poster explicitly requests it, or perhaps if the posting program detects that the subject line has been changed. (Actually, the concept sub-root isn't strictly necessary. The root message would also have this flag. It gets distinguished by being the first message in the chain.) I propose something as simple as: <SRunique@domain> unless somebody is already using that as a prefix. What would be the penalties for having stuff outside the angle brackets. (We know nobody uses that.) For example <?> could just be ??, and the flag could go outside the brackets as in <unique@domain>+. Would this break existing stuff? If not it might be the way to go. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473