This conversation is beginning to sound like the doctoral students and post-docs in my lab one-upping each other on an afternoon when no one has much else to do.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Mike S <mi...@flatsurface.com> wrote: > At 04:03 PM 4/12/2011, Rex wrote... > > Email message headers contain a thread-index number. Any decent email >> program groups the messages into threads using this (normally hidden) >> information. >> > > The Thread-Index: header (and Thread-Topic:) is a completely proprietary, > non-standard header created by Microsoft. From that, "decent email program" > does not follow. > > The correct header to use is References:, as defined in RFC 1036 (and RFC > 2822), and to a lesser extent, In-Reply-To:, which is a mess. > > But, since both References: and In-Reply-To: were very loosely defined when > originally created in RFC 822, threading is, and always will be, unreliable. > > The OP apparently replied to an existing message and put a new subject in. > His MUA put in fresh Thread-*: headers, and handled References: and > Reply-To: properly. Your MUA used the updated References and/or Reply-To to > place that message into an existing thread. > > None of that is unreasonable, none of it violates standards, yet it breaks > threading, because support for threading was never properly specified to > begin with. Pointing fingers at someone is misplacing blame, and pissing > into the wind, too. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
