 | | Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
This broken thread garbage has got to stop. Example: (2 URLs) countless other examples in the .loc.au group.) The question is, how do I detect this broken mailer that Ben's using? It reports itself as: X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) how about, instead of rejecting such messages, make a "soft" threading feature... and activate it only for mailers you know are broken (lke that Internet Mail Service, Eudora, etc)... Just write a little proggie that will attempt to guess what (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) I'd say that's perfectly in line with with RFC 850, Section 2.2.6. It clearly says that a References: headers is "required for all follow-up articles" and that the first four characters of the Subject: header should be changed to "Re: " if (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) Except cases where you do the "(was: ...)" thing, right? --Todd (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) It sounds like if the References: header is used to trace threads, then the Subject: header should begin with "Re: ". I suppose the original intent was that new threads would be started if the Subject: was changed (but that's pure conjecture (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) the problem is, we're dealing with mailers that are just not RFC compliant. Which is why they don't have the references: header in the first place... and we're trying to cludge something around their shortcomings, just so the pretty threading (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) that's one place where we have a choice to make... does re-subjecting make a new thread, or is it still a child of the current thread? most of the time, by the time someone re-subjected a post, it's 3-4 posts AFTER the subject has been (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) I really don't think it's worth the time to work around it -- only to weed out non-compliant mailers in a consistent and reliable way. If someone is using a broken newsreader or mailer that doesn't put in the right headers, tough cookies for (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) This Larry? Can you post the URL, I will take a look at it and tell you what the circs were. I make it a practice not to reply via email EVER but always use the web (or very rarely, NNTP via NS comm 4.7 from my home PC) to reply. (...) I don't (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) Ya, that Larry! :-) Lemme see if I can conjur it up again. OK, here it is: (2 URLs) [...] (...) According to the NNTP headers, ya, it was posted via email. --Todd (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) message (...) 1. Examine the message itself. Notice the headers even in the non raw view... This was a "courtesy copy" mailed to me as well as posted. Ironically enough, by guess who. I disclaim responsibility for this. Now and forevermore. I (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) BTW, leave the bouncer turned on if you would! I think it is a great idea. That way when I get a bounce I can well and truly roast the originator via email reply for wasting my time instead of missing any opportunity because I didn't realise (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) Actually, there never was any other way to view raw messages via HTTP than by clicking the "View Raw Message" link, which goes to the raw.cgi script. (...) raw.cgi sends a MIME content-type of 'text/plain', so you should never see anything (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
| |
| | Re: Broken mailers which mess up threading
|
|
(...) Indeed. NT or IE or the combination thereof is broken in this regard, surprise surprise. IE doesn't directly deal with mime types, it foists the job off on NT (per: (URL) you will need to unwrap this to read it) Instead it is left to the OS (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
