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

Re: HiJacking Threads Was: hostapd for Fedora 10



Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Ed Greshko <Ed Greshko greshko com> wrote:
>   
>> Don't you think that would be a time wasting sorting
>> practice...especially when you consider that there could be multiple
>> unique threads, each with dozens of messages in a given folder?
>>     
>
> Most modern mail clients seem to cache this information in local
> files, same as they do with index info (to avoid having to parse a
> potentially huge mbox file every time they visit a folder).
>   
Yet, it is good to know that they don't rely only solely on the
"In-Reply-To" header...as you've found out.
>   
>> Don't
>> you think using another header designed to help that task would be useful?
>>     
>
> Of course I do. I have nothing against the References header. My only
> point is that In-Reply-To is still very much in use.
>   
Nobody ever claimed that it wasn't being utilized. 
> This is really getting quite OT. The original issue was that Subject
> threading is only ever used as a last resort (at least in Linux/Unix
> clients) so people messing with it in the hope of changing the thread
> topology are wasting their own and everyone else's time.
>
>   


-- 
It was the most I ever threw up, and it changed my life forever. --
Homer Simpson Homer Goes To College Mei-Mei Greshko greshko com
http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=cCSz_koUhSg

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


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