Re: Viewing answers to one's nntp posts in Thunderbird

[gilpel altern org]

> On 06Oct2009 08:42, gilpel altern org <gilpel altern org> wrote: | > On
Tue, 2009-10-06 at 08:14 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> | >> However, it seems to me that the "problem" is...there may be a
thread
> | >> started by one person (not you) and you reply to one post within
that
> | >> thread and wish only to see messages related to your post within
the
> | >> thread.  If that is it, then no there is no concept of
> "sub-treading".
> | >>
> | >> Frankly, there is simple solution to the "problem".
> | >
> | > I've seen clients that could do that sort of thing fairly easily | >
(probable Forte Inc's Agent, or it might have been Thule's Thor), |
> | I'm not so sure any more. You know how much influence Ed has on me :), so
> | I check the headers and the References field is in the form of |
> | 08nmii94i230 newsprovider com
>
> What, no <> bracketing?

Of course, with bracketing!

> | There is no mention of who the poster is. So, the newsreader would
have
> to
> | check every message to see who posted it. Lots of work!
>
> Um, if you're after replies to your own messages it is only necessary to
note the message-ids of your own messages and look for them in the
References: header.

It makes sense. It would then even be possible to specify how "deep"
you're willing to go. For instance, if somebody is replying to somebody
who is replying, etc. to somebody who's replying to your message, you
might not be interested.

If you see any way of implementing this in Thunderbird with a very common
server name like aioe or motzarella, I'm interested.

> I also saw that the References field is not always present. So maybe |
Cameron Simpson could explain us how "A quick '/~P~Q'" manages to do
the trick.

What does '/~P~Q' stand for in Mutt?

> I take the position that if the References field is not present in a
usenet article, it is not a followup.

I thought that Outlook didn't have this field but I rechecked ad can't
find any. My error, I suppose.