> Unless you're in the MS world, which seems to have completely junked use
> of the In-Reply-To and References headers. Outlook in particular is a
> bad offender in this area.
...and as Microsoft would have it's users believe, market share
dominance seems to be what determines standards these days. Witness their
blocking of browsers from the MSN.com and partner websites (thus denying
their paying customers and paying advertisers of their guaranteed revenue
streams), claiming "standards compliance" as a motive.
"Oh, you mean you block browsers which don't adhere to the Microsoft
standards... not the w3c standards... I see..."
More FUD from our friends in Redmond. If they convince 80% of their
users not to worry about using any other browser than IE, and other users
who are using non-IE browsers begin to forge the UserAgent string to "smell"
like IE to the servers, the Microsoft userbase increases (even if the number
of actual IE instances goes down), because people will be pseudo-IE users.
Personally, and I'm sure Bill sides with me on this one, given his
charge at Xerox/PARC, I can't stand this abuse of the standards by a company
who has already been found guilty of monopolistic behavior. Market share
dominance does not determine standards.
In any case, I think that you can change the behavior of how Outlook
threads email anyway, but if not, Outlook Express and IE both contain
rudimentary methods of threading as well.. and there are dozens of Windows
MUAs available to replace the broken, non-compliant, Microsoft versions.
</rant>
Incidentally, I'm thinking of converting the basic README/FAQ/etc.
text files in the CVS into an easily parsable format (XML, likely), so that
I can pull them directly from the cvs to the website for viewing (i.e.
index.pl/faq) and maintain one copy. I'm still chewing on some other
interesting modulations for the website, much more interactivity will be
coming soon.
/d
