On 04/06/2011 09:30 PM, Ian Murray wrote: > As previously stated, "in-reply-to" isn't a mandatory field as far as I can > tell, so it is a stretch to call it "broken". However, now that someone actually > stopped the time-wasting and told me the issue precisely, I was able to rectify > it rather than have me second-guess it. in-reply-to isn't the only way to retain thread sanity > I still stand-by what I said. Given your attitude, I am not surprised at the > state of the CentOS project. good for you. But you might be in for a surprise, since quite a lot of effort here goes into pointing people in the right directions and expecting them to be able to join dots and actually learn about things rather than spoon feeding every step of the way. Anyway, you now know a bit about threading and how lists work, so a small win in its own right. - KB