Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Geoff Howard wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:<snip/>
Unico Hommes wrote:
BTW, Unico, I don't know what is your mail software, but it doesn't send the "In-Reply-To" header, which breaks thread views in Mozilla and makes following discussions highly difficult.
I use Outlook. I checked the thread view in Thunderbird but it wasn't a
problem there. What client are you using? I may rise to the opportunity
to finally exorcise The Evil Empire from controlling my inbox ;-)
Read carefully: "...which breaks thread views in _Mozilla_..." ;-)
Are other people experiencing this also?
Yes, but I was very interested to hear they may have this solved in Thunderbird. I recently happened to look into what headers were being sent by mozilla and outlook and did think it looked like something a reader could solve...
Actually, Unico is not the only one. What I've found is that Mozilla uses the In-Reply-To header whereas Outlook (at least some version) uses "Thread-Topic" and "Thread-Index".
Outlook's headers seem strange to me, as I don't know how a mailer can rebuild a thread tree with just an indentifier for the thread, but no information about the posts relationships.
Ah, yes - that was it. And I remember now it wasn't clear whether they gave enough info to reconstruct the tree, or just associate messages together in a common conversation topic. I use the conversation topic view in outlook at work, and it's not a tree - just a flat topic view. May not be possible after all. My mozilla keeps outlook posts in the same thread, but under the root post, not the actual message replied to. Maybe Thunderbird and Mozilla are the same after all?
Well, I guess some Micro$oft marketing guy decided once that tree view were too much complicated for average users and invented this "conversation view" where all messages in a thread are sorted chronologically.
And even worse: "In-Reply-To" is specified in RFC 2822 [1] as a header a mailer /should/ send (see §3.6.4). Sure, it's not written /must/ send, but we can expect from a full-featured mailer to properly implement these optional features, and not inventing its own.
And that f**cking M$ doesn't even use the "X-" prefix for its non-standard headers. I also found a page [2] listing all other "fancy" M$-specific fields.
[1] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html [2] http://info.ccone.at/INFO/Mail-Archives/procmail/Jul-2002/msg00286.html
Sylvain
-- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects } Orixo, the opensource XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
