Google.

From: Jeff Relf (Usenet_at_JeffRelf.Cotse.NET)
Date: 09/05/04 

Date: 5 Sep 2004 14:23:18 GMT

Hi Mitch Perkins,

You wrote: <<

   Your method of " ranking of people ",
   complete with error(s)... >>

Note that I labeled it _ a _ ranking, not _ the _ ranking.

  It's just a method, take it or leave it.

  I like it because it ranks people by direct replies.

As for errors... What errors ?

I divided the whole thing into two groups,
  which I should've labeled more clearly as:

    Those with two or more titles that don't start with "Re:"
    and those with one or no such titles.

Why did I divide people into two groups like that ?

  Because I feel that people who don't follow RFC 1036
  should be ranked lower than those who do.

When all-uppercase, RFC documents employ exact definitions of
  the following words: SHOULD and MUST.

Because the title of a message SHOULD describe the message,
RFC 1036 says that when the topic changes:

  A. One SHOULD Not use "Re: " at the start of a title.

  B. One SHOULD Not delete the References line.

>From http://www.usenet-fr.net/fr-chartes/son-of-rfc1036.2.html
<< If the poster determines that
    the topic of the followup differs significantly
    from what is described in the subject,
    a new, more descriptive, subject SHOULD be substituted
    ( With No Back Reference ). >>
      ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^

The term, " back reference " here is defined as
  the " Re: " tag at the start of a title,
  ( Not the References: line in the headers ).

Google violates RFC 1036 by mandating something more like this:

  Because the title of a message MUST define the thread,
  One MUST use "Re: " at the start of a title...
  Otherwise we MUST delete the References line.

And that's your unspoken complaint isn't it Mitch ?

Your stuck using a broken newsreader: Google.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My ISP is terrible mess for newgroup.
    ... but it violates an explicit requirement ... in the original RFC documenting USENET messages, ... "References:" fields as appropriate, as described below. ... unique message identifiers, optionally separated by CFWS. ...
    (sci.math)
  • RFC 1036: The References header defines the thread.
    ... Stardard newsreaders make MIDs links when they're prefaced with news:, ... if your newsreader won't do that then just paste it into Google. ... RFC 1036 says anything about sorting by Message-ID. ... by omitting the References header when a title changes: ...
    (sci.physics)
  • [Full-disclosure] !ADVISORY! - x Thu Mar 16 14:01:27 EST 2006 x - Integer Overflow in Mi
    ... Microsoft Windows XP incorrectly parses integer data, and this can be used to execute arbitrary code. ... APPENDIX A VENDOR INFORMATION ... APPENDIX B REFERENCES ... RFC 5879 ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Take control of your life Rick.
    ... Stop blaming me for your numerous problems, take control of your life. ... Asside from Google's deletion of the References line in violation of RFC 1036, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: My priorities.
    ... " Jeff Relf " makes a valid point! ... The only reasons that I don't use Jeff's style ... the References line SHOULD Not be deleted. ... RFC 1036 says that when the topic changes: ...
    (sci.physics)