 | | 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)
|
