Re: Unable to create Dejanews nnweb groups

[Hannu Koivisto <azure@iki.fi>]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

| Supercool!  With total and complete headers and all!
| 
| nnweb now does dejanews searches ok again.

(loop Supercool!)  First I thought that the result is still not
quite correct, but now that I read the manual, the behaviour I'm
seeing seems to be a feature of nnweb.  That is, if I use my
original example again and use "~g comp.lang.lisp clorb" as the
search string, I get a summary buffer like this:

"""
R  [   0: Robert Monfera      ] Re: LispWorks status<clip>
R  [   0: David Hanley        ] Re: java frontend for<clip>
R  [   0: David Hanley        ] Re: Announcing CLORB a<clip>
R      <   0: Raymond Wiker       >
R      <   0: Lennart Staflin     >
"""

whereas Dejanews tells me (irrelevant stuff stripped; output is
from w3m):

"""
Date *   Subject *      Author 
10/12/   Re: Announcing David  
99       CLORB a Commo  Hanley 
10/10/   Announcing     Lennart
99       CLORB a Common Staflin
         Li                    
10/29/   Re: java       David  
99       frontend for   Hanley 
         lisp?                 
10/11/   Re: Announcing Raymond
99       CLORB a Commo  Wiker  
11/04/   Re: LispWorks  Robert 
99       status         Monfera
"""

I.e., if I understand correctly, because nnweb doesn't read
articles before that is actually requested by the user, it doesn't
know message-id and references fields and thus orders the articles
of the "Announcing CLORB.." thread randomly (well, probably in the
order it gets them or something), which in this case is the reverse
of the correct order.  Right?

I wouldn't probably care about this if Gnus didn't put the initial
article of the thread in the middle of the replies, since now that
it does, I can't immediately see which one is the initial article
(which I consider as useful information when searching for
information from articles).  But even if it doesn't have the normal
information for threading, couldn't it a) put the article with no
"Re:" in its subject as the first one and b) order the rest based
on the date.  As far as I can see, in this case this simple logic
would produce the correct ordering.  Of course, it would fail to
order replies sent on the same day, but that's not so important
anyway.  Am I making any sense at all?

-- 
Hannu