Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 21:29:03 +0000 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [no spam] ramifications_of_tweaks_to_subject_line :) - Was: ramifications of tweaks to subject line Message-ID: <20170112212903.183c8015@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20170112211912.1ca1a74e@archlinux.localdomain> References: <f060a49f-cf3a-3d5b-9344-e1c207d261b0@dreamchaser.org> <20170112183632.GP26386@mailboy.kipshouse.net> <20170112211912.1ca1a74e@archlinux.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 21:19:12 +0100 Ralf Mardorf via freebsd-questions wrote: > Hi, > > I confirm Karl's reply regarding the headers. > > The thread is made of the email headers > > Message-ID > In-Reply-To > References > > so as a reference actually > > In-Reply-To > References > > could be used. The subject has nothing to do with the thread. Some > MUAs allow to fall back to the subject, trying to workaround broken > threads. A thread is broken, if there should be something fishy with > the mentioned headers. I don't know whether it's still the case, but there were some mail systems that didn't preserve the original Message-Id, so In-Reply-To and References could contain bogus values. There's a rather complicated document out there somewhere that details how to do robust threading that takes account of this, and it does include the subject. Whether any clients are still using this algorithm I don't know. > My apologies for deforming the subject, but this might demonstrate > that the subject is irrelevant, if the thread isn't broken. It demonstrates that an exact match on subject is not the sole mechanism, but we knew that anyway because that wouldn't allow for a "Re: " prefix, or sub-threads. Note that your modified subject ended in the original subject, like an ordinary reply would, just with a longer prefix.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170112212903.183c8015>