On Wed, 18 May 2005 06:49:13 +0100, Tony Boom wrote: >> On the other hand there is Mulburry, incorrectly cutting off >> Message-ID's in the References headerline.
> Wrong! Mulberry is not at fault in any way shape or form. I was > of the same opinion as you, I was defending TB! with my life. > However it has been irrefutably proved to me that my server is > at fault and NOT Mulberry. Mulberry has just managed to > highlight bugs in my server setup. So, what you're saying is that your mailserver 1) strips those < > from Message-IDs. 2) ruthlessly reformats the References headerline, cutting individual Message-IDs in half. That's NOT good! >> Conclusion: Two mail clients not treating References ID's as >> they should do according to the relevant RFC. > Wrong again, there is only one that, even though on first > appearances seems to work properly, doesn't and it's not > Mulberry. Be it Mulberry or your mailserversoftware, if the References header gets mangled and/or TB! doesn't recognize valid Message-IDs, it should come as no surprise that it can not handle Message threading the way it should. That was the point I tried to make. Arjan -- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ________________________________________________________ Current beta is (none) | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
