Threading bug

Threading bug

[Greg Stark]

Gnus seems to gather some fragmented threads using adoption but often fails in
mail groups to completely reunite orphaned articles with their parents. Below
is a summary buffer for an nnfolder group, this is gnus 5.4.64. 

   [  24: David ROCHER        ] ppp 2.3.1-2 problem
     [  36: Juan Cespedes       ] 
   [  41: Philip Hands        ] Re: ppp 2.3.1-2 problem 
     [  51: Christoph Lameter   ] 
   [  17: Philip Hands        ] Re: ppp 2.3.1-2 problem 
     [  38: Erik Andersen       ] 
       [  30: Philip Hands        ] 
   [  25: Tim Sailer          ] Re: ppp 2.3.1-2 problem
   [  31: Philip Hands        ] Re: ppp 2.3.1-2 problem 


And below are the message-id and in-reply-to headers from each of these
message grabbed from the *nntpd* buffer (M-x keep-lines is handy:)

Message-Id: <19971026184155.49146@savage>
.
In-Reply-To: <19971026184155.49146@savage>
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.96.971027010634.670E-100000@gizmo.lander.es>
.
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Oct 1997 01:12:22 +0100." <Pine.LNX.3.96.971027010634.670E-100000@gizmo.lander.es> 
Message-Id: <19868.877944001@hands.com>
.
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 26 Oct 1997 18:41:55 +0100." <19971026184155.49146@savage> 
Message-Id: <21266.877953468@hands.com>
.
In-Reply-To: <21266.877953468@hands.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.95q.971027084932.18643A-100000@ultra1>
.
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Oct 1997 08:50:53 MST." <Pine.SOL.3.95q.971027084932.18643A-100000@ultra1> 
Message-Id: <24704.877976350@hands.com>
.
Message-Id: <9710272006.AA10056@sun10.sep.bnl.gov.sep>
In-Reply-To: <24704.877976350@hands.com> from "Philip Hands" at Oct 27, 97 06:19:10 pm
.
In-Reply-To: <19868.877944001@hands.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.96.971027171302.723A-100000@cyrix200.waterf.org>
.
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Oct 1997 15:06:56 EST." <9710272006.AA10056@sun10.sep.bnl.gov.sep> 
Message-Id: <11665.878087033@hands.com>
.

Re: Threading bug

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Greg Stark <gsstark@MIT.EDU> writes:

> Gnus seems to gather some fragmented threads using adoption but
> often fails in mail groups to completely reunite orphaned articles
> with their parents. Below is a summary buffer for an nnfolder group,
> this is gnus 5.4.64.
> 
>    [  24: David ROCHER        ] ppp 2.3.1-2 problem
>      [  36: Juan Cespedes       ] 
>    [  41: Philip Hands        ] Re: ppp 2.3.1-2 problem 
>      [  51: Christoph Lameter   ] 
>    [  17: Philip Hands        ] Re: ppp 2.3.1-2 problem 
>      [  38: Erik Andersen       ] 
>        [  30: Philip Hands        ] 
>    [  25: Tim Sailer          ] Re: ppp 2.3.1-2 problem
>    [  31: Philip Hands        ] Re: ppp 2.3.1-2 problem 

[...]

> In-Reply-To: <19971026184155.49146@savage>
> Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.3.96.971027010634.670E-100000@gizmo.lander.es>
> .
> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Oct 1997 01:12:22 +0100." <Pine.LNX.3.96.971027010634.670E-100000@gizmo.lander.es> 
> Message-Id: <19868.877944001@hands.com>

This isn't an orphaned article -- it should thread normally.  Did the
article have a bogus References header, perhaps?  References headers
take precedence over In-Reply-To headers.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Threading bug

[Wes Hardaker]

>>>>> On 05 Nov 1997 21:57:16 +0100, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> said:

Lars> This isn't an orphaned article -- it should thread normally.  Did the
Lars> article have a bogus References header, perhaps?  References headers
Lars> take precedence over In-Reply-To headers.

FYI, the default threading subject grouping behaviour seems wierd...
I ran into a similar problem and finally uncommented my 

  (setq gnus-summary-gather-subject-limit 'fuzzy)

line again.  (I don't remember why I had commented it out in the first
place).  Anyway, this made all of the above problems get fixed.  I
didn't sit down and compare the subject lines with a magnifying glass,
but I probably should have.  (its not to late, it was just today).

Maybe there was spaces or something at the end, because for all other
practical purposes it looked the same to the un-trained naked I.

-- 
"Ninjas aren't dangerous.  They're more afraid of you than you are of them."