[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: HiJacking Threads Was: hostapd for Fedora 10

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Ed Greshko <Ed Greshko greshko com> wrote:
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Ed Greshko <Ed Greshko greshko com> wrote:
>>> Yes....  I probably should have removed a few more headers as well to
>>> totally break it out.   But, now this reply will be out of thread with
>>> your response.
>>> Bottom line....  People start new messages rather than trying to reply
>>> to an old one and then change the subject and all....  So, now that it
>>> is completely mucked over....  :-)
>> It's worth pointing out that RFC-standard threading is controlled by
>> the In-Reply-To header, not by the Subject, i.e. conforming mail
>> clients pay *no attention* to the Subject header when displaying
>> threads. People who hijack threads and plead that they "fixed" the
>> Subject line should be told about this so they don't do it again.
> Hummm....  Can't say that I recall an RFC that fully/adequately covers
> threading.  Can you cite the RFC?

RFC 822:

     4.6.2.  IN-REPLY-TO

             The contents of this field identify  previous  correspon-
        dence  which this message answers.  Note that if message iden-
        tifiers are used in this  field,  they  must  use  the  msg-id
        specification format.

Although the text doesn't explicitly use the term "threading", it's
pretty clear what is meant.

> Yet, and pardon my repetition, even *if* there are RFCs that cover how
> email clients are supposed to handle threading people should *not* be
> taking an existing message and attempting to turn it into a "new"
> message.

I agree.

>There will always be email clients that don't fully conform to
> the RFC's and there will always be email clients that will attempt to go
> beyond what they RFC's mandate.


> Not to mention that most of the headers
> that email clients do use to help in threading aren't normally accessible.

Not sure what you mean here. They're accessible to the MUA if not
directly to the user. In any case, I'm arguing for *not* messing with
them, so the point is moot.

> Besides, I could never figure out how hitting reply, changing the
> subject, and changing the body, to create the illusion of a "new*
> message is easier than just actually writing a new message.

Yes, it's one of life's little mysteries. In many clients composing a
new message is even easier than replying. Just click on the address
field in an existing message and voilĂ .


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]