From: gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net   
      
   On 11/27/23 18:42, Paul Edwards wrote:   
   > Oh, that actually happened, did it? In google   
   > groups my posts are appearing in the same thread   
   > normally.   
      
   Yep, your message is appearing as a new thread.   
      
   > That initially surprised me, but then I thought   
   > it was logical for situations where the reply is   
   > not to anyone specific.   
      
   Messages are to the newsgroup(s).  --  It's possible to send a single   
   message to multiple newsgroups in Usenet.  I don't know if Google groups   
   allows that or not.   
      
   > (which I wrote) since google groups became read-only.   
      
   Oh ... Google Groups is far from read-only in general.  I think there   
   are some newsgroups that are now read-only in Google Groups UI.  But the   
   thousands of messages from Google Groups flooding other newsgroups (as   
   of a few days ago) are evidence of the read-write nature of Google   
   Groups Usenet gateway.   
      
   > I don't yet know how to construct a reply properly,   
   > but even if I did, google groups isn't showing me   
   > the raw headers (it used to), so I can't extract   
   > the information I need.   
      
   This is the 2nd or 3rd reference to Google Groups not making headers   
   available.  That action really disappoints me.  Yet more devolution of   
   Google Groups.   
      
   > I could get the raw headers via eternal september,   
   > but that is more laborious. And I still don't know   
   > the rules, regardless.   
      
   What rules are you thinking of / concerned about?   
      
   > I assume it's a simple matter   
   > of getting the message-id from the original message   
   > and then constructing some sort of in-reply-to   
   > header line? If someone can confirm that, I'll try   
   > to do a proper reply for you to confirm.   
      
   Yes.   
      
   References:    
      
   Where "" is the Message-ID: of the message   
   that I'm replying to.   
      
   References: is a Usenet construct while In-Reply-To: is more of an email   
   construct.  That being said, it is quite common for messages to have both.   
      
   Both References: and In-Reply-To: include the Message-ID: of the message   
   that the reply is directly related to.  One, I don't remember which, can   
   include more history like reply to a reply to a reply to a reply to an   
   original post type thing.  --  Sorry, I can't be arsed to look up the   
   proper RFC for specifics.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Grant. . . .   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)