In-Reply-To: <19990316235013.666.qmail@cr.yp.to>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 09:25:03 +0100
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
From: Brad Knowles <blk@skynet.be>
Subject: Re: References/In-Reply-To replacement text
Message-Id: <19990317092503.012164@relay.skynet.be>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, Mar 16, 1999, D. J. Bernstein <djb@cr.yp.to> wrote:

>What's the benefit of creating both In-Reply-To and References when
>there's only one parent? This seems unnecessarily complicated.

    You have obviously not been reading your mail.  There is not just one
parent.  Existing RFC 821 terminology allows for multiple parents.  What
we have been discussing is the exact wording of how these fields should
be described so as to make this fact more explicit, and to give a little
more active direction to those folks who are writing MUAs that might make
use of these facts when constructing message threads.

-- 
  These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy
 ____________________________________________________________________
|o| Brad Knowles, <blk@skynet.be>            Belgacom Skynet NV/SA |o|
|o| Systems Architect, News/mail/FTP Admin   Rue Col. Bourg, 124   |o|
|o| Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.11.11/12.49         B-1140 Brussels       |o|
|o| http://www.skynet.be                     Belgium               |o|
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
   Usenet is not the web.  Just because the web handles some things
 poorly is not a good reason to apply those same solutions to Usenet.