From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.user/946 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "J.B. Moreno" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.user Subject: Re: Broken threading [was: Unbelievable.] Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 00:22:48 -0400 Message-ID: <190820020022480152%planb@newsreaders.com> References: <86it3cbeob.fsf@sergyar.ckdhr.com> <240720022348365027%planb@newsreaders.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138667806 9058 80.91.229.2 (31 Jan 2006 00:36:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:36:46 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: nobody Tue Jan 17 17:28:23 2006 Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.gnus Original-Path: quimby.gnus.org!lackawana.kippona.com!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!feed2.newsreader.com!news2.newsreader.com!flame.newsreader.com!planb Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: Thoth/1.6.0 (Carbon/OS X) X-Face: ]lUBtDImSD_`E"<*ZgyJUoCT\=CdRLFX4qCMLK[xy^L7v|uX|f8`cFDd*PaH8 N*x>d^h Original-X-Trace: flame.newsreader.com bVY398gDf@@CwG,tl=JTTk8kdJE2jyaz80xCYlR+Rr/hYpM Original-Xref: bridgekeeper.physik.uni-ulm.de gnus-emacs-gnus:1086 Original-Lines: 58 X-Gnus-Article-Number: 1086 Tue Jan 17 17:28:23 2006 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.user:946 Archived-At: In article , Tom Hardy wrote: Sorry for the late reply, was offline for a week and then didn't read the group for a week.. > "J.B. Moreno" writes: > > That might work -- then again it might not. I once did some local > > gatewaying in order to read a mailing list with a threaded view, and > > the only thing that was reliable was that programs repeated their > > mistakes. You are describing a "generic" method, which did indeed > > work most of the time, but I had to have a whole bunch of special > > cases (it wouldn't surprise me to learn that some of them were > > developed by throwing darts to see what they should do), > > I thought I would look at cases just for fun. Tell me if I am all > wet or otherwise wasting my time. > > I. Mailer updates References and In-Reply-To, in which case they > both work, but references are more versatile. In this case, > In-Reply-To will be identical to the last reference. > > II. Mailer does neither. Anything goes, but it is likely to look > like the first case. > > III. Mailer updates In-Reply-To, ignores References. In-Reply-To > will not be found in References. > > IV. Mailer updates References, ignores In-Reply-To. In-Reply-To > will be found in References, but it won't be the *last* > reference. (Does this happen?) Yes, don't ask me why. > V. Other cases, such as one or the other header (or both) is > missing. Skipping the fact that V covers everything, I-IV is pretty much what you'd expect and is pretty much what *most* mailers do -- but it's by no means certain. One of the special cases that I had to keep an eye out for was where In-Reply-To was accurate, but References wasn't (I remember two variation on that, one where the precursor was simply left off, and one where it was inserted as the 2nd id in the References header, which required an especially stupid programmer IMO). Basically anything can go wrong. And then there's stupid users who for some reason reply to a message and will manually cut-n-paste so that it appears to be a reply to another message (and no, I don't mean where they are replying to two messages at once), which you have to watch out for because you don't want to mistake it for something else and try to fix it based upon the client. -- J.B. Moreno