Re: threading problem
On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 08:37:25AM +0200, Byrial Jensen wrote: On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 03:18:07 +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote: When Mutt does threading, it pays attention to the message times. Right, and that is indeed the problem. 1003: Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 12:56:48 +0100 Subject: Mapping problem Message 1001 was sent at "Sat, 20 May 2000 07:33:38 EDT", that is 11.33.38 + (UT) Message 1003 was sent at "Sat, 20 May 2000 12:56:48 +0100", that is 11.56.48 + (UT) So message 1001 seems to be sent before than message 1003, and therefore Mutt will not treat it as a reply to message 1003. Good observation. That sure seems to be the problem. In looking again at the header of the original poster's message (1003), I noticed: Received: (qmail 12169 invoked from network); 20 May 2000 10:57:35 - Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 12:56:48 +0100 All the times in the Received: headers and the From header are consistent, but the original poster's clock seems to be fast by an hour. Gary -- Gary Johnson | Agilent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] | RF Communications Product Generation Unit | Spokane, Washington, USA
Re: threading problem
Gary Johnson muttered: All the times in the Received: headers and the From header are consistent, but the original poster's clock seems to be fast by an hour. Gary -- Gary Johnson | Agilent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] | RF Communications Product Generation Unit | Spokane, Washington, USA So, to get the threading in the way to want it just set the Date: header of that message to a reasonable value and you'll be fine. Michael -- If you teach your children to like computers and to know how to gamble then they'll always be interested in something and won't come to no real harm. PGP-fingerprint: DECA E9D2 EBDD 0FE0 0A65 40FA 5967 ACA1 0B57 7C13
Re: threading problem
Michael Tatge: So, to get the threading in the way to want it just set the Date: header of that message to a reasonable value and you'll be fine. that's cool! whenever you suspect something's fishy, you just wade thru your email to check the sequence of dates? or did you already write the program for that? -- clemens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: threading problem
clemensF muttered: Michael Tatge: So, to get the threading in the way to want it just set the Date: header of that message to a reasonable value and you'll be fine. that's cool! whenever you suspect something's fishy, you just wade thru your email to check the sequence of dates? or did you already write the program for that? I didn't do that, it was the original poster, that already did it. If he for God's sake can't live with the wrong threading, editing the header seems to be the easiest workaround. If you find this cool, buy a coat. You'll be warmer then. :) Michael -- RAM wasn't built in a day. PGP-fingerprint: DECA E9D2 EBDD 0FE0 0A65 40FA 5967 ACA1 0B57 7C13
Re: threading problem
On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 09:14:17PM +0200, Michael Tatge wrote: I didn't do that, it was the original poster, that already did it. If he for God's sake can't live with the wrong threading, editing the header seems to be the easiest workaround. If you find this cool, buy a coat. You'll be warmer then. :) I beg your pardon. The point of my original post was that there appeared to be an error in mutt's threading. I thought the error was worth fixing, or at least worth understanding. The point of editing the mailbox was to understand the problem, not to fix the threading. Now that I understand what's going on (an incorrectly-set clock), I can certainly live with it. -- Gary Johnson | Agilent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] | RF Communications Product Generation Unit | Spokane, Washington, USA
Re: threading problem
Gary Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Tue, 23 May 2000: I'm having a problem understanding why some messages are threaded as they are. It seems incorrect to me, but it's probably some subtlety I don't understand. Right... Okay, I *think* I understand what is going on, let's see if I can explain it. There's one assumption in the below which I'm not sure of. 1001: Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 07:33:38 EDT Subject: Re: Mapping problem I think the root of the problem is here. The date isn't properly formatted, instead of having the timezone in the +/- formatting (like in the rest of the messages), the timezone is represented as "EDT". I *think*, but am not sure, that Mutt doesn't understand what this means (-0400 I think). So Mutt treats the time of this message like it was in GMT... When Mutt does threading, it pays attention to the message times. A message that has been sent before another message logically cannot be a reply to that message, right? (I guess this check only applies for subject-based threading, it might be ignored for references-threading). So this email is the first (according to date) with this subject. So every other email must be a reply to it, or part of some thread. 1003: Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 12:56:48 +0100 Subject: Mapping problem This message, the original question, doesn't start with the Re: prefix. Because you have $sort_re set, Mutt doesn't put it together with the other messages in the same thread. I'm not sure about all these issues, so I'm making a few guesses... However this would explain Mutt's behaviour. You can at least check whether Mutt understands the EDT timezone by sorting by date-sent, since in that case the messages should sort in the same order as in which they were recaived, IF the "EDT" timezone is interpreted correctly. If it isn't, then the "EDT" message will be first. I hope this explains the situation to you. Regards, Mikko -- // Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/ // The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator / // Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy scifi, the Corrs / PATH=C:\WINDOWS;C:\WINDOWS\RUN;C:\WINDOWS\CRASH
Re: threading problem
Mikko Hänninen: PATH=C:\WINDOWS;C:\WINDOWS\RUN;C:\WINDOWS\CRASH you got your path all wrong. with windows it =must= look like this: PATH=C:\WINDOWS;C:\WINDOWS\CRASH;C:\WINDOWS\RUN -- clemens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
