Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!not-for-mail From: Grant Edwards Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Subject: Re: Is threading better on Usenet or gmane? Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 14:55:46 +0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: <1460385693.3220159.575241033.0E32F975@webmail.messagingengine.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67-130-15-94.dia.static.qwest.net X-Trace: reader1.panix.com 1460386546 23510 67.130.15.94 (11 Apr 2016 14:55:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 14:55:46 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/1.0.2 (Linux) Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:106884 On 2016-04-11, Random832 wrote: > I've already outlined under what circumstances threading is likely > to be broken (before the recent changes): > >| For users reading by the mailing list, Usenet users' replies to >| Mailing List users will be broken (but their replies to each other >| will be fine). For users reading by Usenet, Mailing List users' >| replies to each other will be broken (though all replies made via >| Usenet or to Usenet users will be fine). > > gmane is essentially the same as reading it by email as far as this > issue is concerned. > > What the new change (see Mark Sapiro's recent posts on this topic) > should fix is the first half of that. It doesn't necessarily do anything > about the second half: OK. So recent fix should fix all gateway-related thread breakage for mailing-list readers (which includes gmane). I had read most of the thread on that change, but was still confused about exactly what was getting fixed. Thanks for clarifying it. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I'll eat ANYTHING at that's BRIGHT BLUE!! gmail.com