On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:08:36AM -0800, pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
> * From: David Wright
> * Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:10:10 -0600
> > Er, there was at least one posted here within the last week:
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/02/msg00189.html
> > That's just one that happe
* From: David Wright
* Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:10:10 -0600
> Er, there was at least one posted here within the last week:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/02/msg00189.html
> That's just one that happened to still be in my inbox.
Interesting, thanks. Does the header show
On Ma, 11 feb 20, 10:53:45, pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
>
> Thanks for challenging my claim. Without your reply I probably
> wouldn't have made the test.
That was certainly not my intention, so I apologize to the list for the
additional traffic.
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FA
On Tue 11 Feb 2020 at 07:36:49 (-0800), pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
>
> * From: Andrei POPESCU
> * Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:43:11 +0200
> > Without In-Reply-To a mail reader has no way to which message the reply
> > belongs, so it's more important than References.
>
> Please look at the W
On Tue 11 Feb 2020 at 10:53:45 (-0800), pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
>
> Now we can see the result of the test.
>
> Messages
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/02/msg00416.html
> and
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/02/msg00420.html
> both thread back to your reply which threads
Andrei,
Now we can see the result of the test.
Messages
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/02/msg00416.html
and
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/02/msg00420.html
both thread back to your reply which threads back to my original
message. They have the same References. 416 was i
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 07:49:42AM -0800, pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
> This is a deliberate 2nd copy of a message. In-Reply-To is omitted
> from the header to test threading.
>
>
Well you've proven your point. My MUA does indeed thread this in
the correct order.
However, what actually is your poi
This is a deliberate 2nd copy of a message. In-Reply-To is omitted
from the header to test threading.
Andrei,
* From: Andrei POPESCU
* Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:43:11 +0200
> Without In-Reply-To a mail reader has no way to which message the reply
> belongs, so it's more important
Andrei,
* From: Andrei POPESCU
* Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:43:11 +0200
> Without In-Reply-To a mail reader has no way to which message the reply
> belongs, so it's more important than References.
Please look at the Web view of your reply. (If your mailer linkifies
this URL, click
On Lu, 10 feb 20, 10:36:18, pe...@easthope.ca wrote:
>
> Given that References includes the In-Reply-To identifier, I'm not
> sure In-Reply-To is necessary for threading.
Without In-Reply-To a mail reader has no way to which message the reply
belongs, so it's more important than References.
From: David Wright
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 00:18:27 -0500
> But your threading has improved after a poor patch earlier this month
> when the magnifying glasses were being pasted inside the links' < >
> again.
Syntax for threading is fairly simple really; but probably not obvious
to someon
11 matches
Mail list logo
