From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from mx2.math.uh.edu (mx2.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.33]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43BEE29C7F for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 18:58:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from lists1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.208]) by mx2.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1rblQQ-0000000CN9u-0cwD for ml@inbox.vuxu.org; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 11:58:02 -0600 Received: from lists1.math.uh.edu ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by lists1.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1rblQP-00000000eub-3gro for ml@inbox.vuxu.org; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 11:58:01 -0600 Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32]) by lists1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1rblQO-00000000euV-1J87 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 11:58:00 -0600 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1rblQM-0000000FNSE-2qvy for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 11:58:00 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References :In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=wLZZcdMGyOn46McOTnHIpybrgVeuzP/5uH03mZ4hueY=; b=lLvNYZUZRM+f2LB2fXNILH1a8M +JXIAeeUJOxVdxd5nSyqYiMhtajAIh5aoe7PluoWPfEVI4wl29PBvZAxBhuT4jVU82tz7TEP0AGYc HrzAqJCrVJUOlBR6D6PY27UfEoEu9qNUcGCh+/JHdiGORvzR4xkl92Vp4nkkbZmDTVnE=; Received: from mail-4317.proton.ch ([185.70.43.17]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rblQE-0008Ld-3y for ding@gnus.org; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 18:57:54 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kubajecminek.cz; s=protonmail; t=1708279068; x=1708538268; bh=wLZZcdMGyOn46McOTnHIpybrgVeuzP/5uH03mZ4hueY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=xEm2U0GyR9KzHkgmtlJip8RNq30UFGmCqbr96rjCewPutOp+8BCwII+RYW1nSPBSQ 2xShJBwkTfTDU4tmKDMaHgH4fzAFr+FI1kwWIMPi0cClTPXFXduL8G7vEdzoaET5Yv AiexLGeW74q1+tpy9iso2ZB11UQzDXBrcwfIUuce3R7TmMRtgwop0HrkNaWLaHCwHu vCQgTauyuD8dlXLWY6WtR5v2CNKAOS6iXV1yu46+IYoOLx5/ulJXsj/m8Xa6ya9Zxd cILOs80JfYwLbTLoutxVwvOadt0Li0bpkUzoKarXC4MamaW6weDrR+2Q8sdIJe8uO6 x/CIZT3qMdxuQ== Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 17:57:28 +0000 To: ding@gnus.org From: =?utf-8?Q?Jakub_Je=C4=8Dm=C3=ADnek?= Subject: Re: ProtonMail Bridge Patch Message-ID: <87r0h94pvh.fsf@kubajecminek.cz> In-Reply-To: <87y1bhpt1o.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> References: <86msrzknim.fsf@kubajecminek.cz> <87frxrq84g.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> <86cysvexqv.fsf@kubajecminek.cz> <87y1bhpt1o.fsf@ericabrahamsen.net> Feedback-ID: 98803324:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-ID: Precedence: bulk "Eric Abrahamsen" writes: >> I might be wrong of course but I think that the latter and that there's >> good chance sorting the headers would fix this issue. > > I still haven't found anything that looks like a hard requirement that > headers be sorted, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. That was only my guess (based on very shallow understanding of the Gnus internals). I can try to implement sorting and see if that helps. This is what I found inside Gnus manual but I'm not sure if that's relevant for this issue: [...] article numbers must be assigned in order of arrival in the group; this is not necessarily the same as the date of the message. > I also wasn't able to find anything explicit in RFC 3501 or 9051 about > the order of FETCH responses -- for my information, can you point me in > the right direction? That's the thing. There's nothing explicit in RFC 3501 about the message order so AFAIK the consensus is that UIDs don't have to be sorted. --=20 Kuba Je=C4=8Dm=C3=ADnek (http://kubajecminek.cz)