Is threading better on Usenet or gmane?

[Random832]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016, at 10:24, Grant Edwards wrote:
> I've been reading c.l.p on Usenet for many, many years.  There has
> always been a certain abount of thread breakage (presumably due to
> broken e-mail clients and/or the list<->usenet gateway), but it seems
> to have gotten worse lately.
> 
> Has anybody noticed whether the threading is less broken if one reads
> the list on gmane?  Everytime I decide to try to do a direct
> comparison, I can't find enough thread breaks to tell if there's a
> significant difference.

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:

Email User A posts message B at email.com, this becomes C at python.org (the
new change makes this look like a reply to the nonexistent B at email.com)
Email User D replies with E at email.net, this becomes F at python.org (but
still says it's a reply to B at email.com)
Usenet User G replies (to A/B) with H at usenet.com, this is a reply to
C at python.org, but (with the new change) acknowledges B at email.com as the
"grandparent article", so mailing list users should still see it under
B's thread.

So, even though D's message is a reply to A's message, it won't show up
that way on usenet. G's message should show up fine on both.


Everything would be perfect if everyone posted to Usenet and read by
email/gmane.