 | | RE: Lost Instructions
|
|
In lugnet.general, Whytcross, Benjamin wrote: <something> Not to pick on Benjamin or anything, but why is it that none of his replies have a References: header field and never appear in the correct place in the threaded view of the ng in my (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lost Instructions
|
|
(...) The e-mail gateway handles References (as well as In-Reply-To) headers both directions, so it must be a broken emailer. There are couple people using a broken version of Eudora which always seems to chop the last message ID and cause their (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lost Instructions
|
|
(...) Hmm. Looking for the presence of something like -----Original Message----- (added by some many odd mailers) might get part of the way there in detecting a reply, but then that would also get false positives where someone was forwarding (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lost Instructions
|
|
(...) Oops -- doy -- that should be a square closing bracket -- m/^[Rr][Ee]:\s*/ --Todd (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lost Instructions
|
|
(...) but what do you do if it is broken? reject it? that's not so friendly - basicly you're saying that you're not allowing people to use eudora with the mail interface... :/ dunno what you can do though - no really good way of know what the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lost Instructions
|
|
(...) m/^Re:\s+/i ? Dan (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lost Instructions
|
|
(...) Yes! (...) How friendly is it for someone to post using a broken client which can't even get the headers correct? There are hundreds of non-broken clients to use. (...) This wouldn't catch the Eudora bug -- which omits the last message-ID in (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lost Instructions
|
|
(...) Ya, that oughtta work too. :) Say, I just remembered one thing from cc:Mail -- it puts (or used to -- not sure if it's still the case today) the reply depth count in square brackets between "Re" and ":", i.e.: Re: blah blah blah Re[2]: blah (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lost Instructions
|
|
(...) just for efficiancy's sake, you shouldn't put a /s* at the end - it's not doing anything at all, is it? if there's anything that matches the /s class, it'll just take longer to complete the match, but if there's no /s at the end, it'll still (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lost Instructions
|
|
(...) True -- the \s* isn't doing anything in that case. The regex could be considered a shorter form of ($subject_base) = ($subject_raw =~ m/^(Re(?:\[\d+\]):\s...?(.*)$/i); in which the \s* is actually needed. I left it on in the example way above (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
