From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Thu Jan 12 21:29:09 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 509BCCAC900 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 21:29:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwmaillists@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-wm0-x243.google.com (mail-wm0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDE2A19F1 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 21:29:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwmaillists@googlemail.com) Received: by mail-wm0-x243.google.com with SMTP id l2so6811208wml.2 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:29:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4/+IY/ktVu4Kcb2ud7cyTMkaFDnKPRiuarlGxEZhtUA=; b=u2Lw+rDzy2ds2+lufSiVc7E77c1405NMGA1MEETs3G5bwpIcRJQhG5yG7kPZcrMYAC 5/n4XHwROSrhoMSHW9uWAP9QK/3r1KjYsf8Qr8A8vtMAXL4e2TkhirLiYWx/b3RyxHi+ dNJJ3sovXjj15wg4rFIoTskyysbjZVPuWVOIT4WajjU9mfGQvTKzngG9hkEyeMceAE1v otF3+o1uvEg8tMTi+iDjNxRnD7krubcNd7yh8NJRsFXB2khzn8WBkTFcHbKtjbBdj/MC uOpz8LpadFit0K77Iw/p8YRmaN9x86Ut8a7aZVZw3qKuZTfC/Bcjt34lHs7Pa73lGETy hx5A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4/+IY/ktVu4Kcb2ud7cyTMkaFDnKPRiuarlGxEZhtUA=; b=Ta8kTC3uL5HSp9ZMkbwrbGhcYuuuT+FQZYiuw8sF73r8lVIvI3zG7PZgVqlwyMeueN 0ZvI6yyXDalfxjv1C4PfKxImjrYKPqQp/y1Dbl3nJHOH/faib9z7JtCP23xP+zI05vi4 4tzMF2U4KUJfaMPiDNNOFbVG3NmRwwQcBLX5ft0GG3DQG8owNzNQwzmAEAgEzRSG1RoP NY+JoPtF0fvmzjRx2s9dijHRpXQ9KIVJcB8J/cW0LI6WEMS+hYm/vqfD3TcZmBdGLMDY 207dDnPOml0jF+EovT4HKVkXYtYPCsB+tvOjfSUt5+ALoXSERM9cE+CqMwV8bdpny930 YW6w== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIxqGWChp7G+DQoM6kYGExEQTvPQ0coc5XvgUVDAQScM3kGAwtzgDKqSO4PylGsjQ== X-Received: by 10.28.92.21 with SMTP id q21mr104140wmb.71.1484256546104; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:29:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com ([81.17.24.158]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 204sm5666788wmj.7.2017.01.12.13.29.04 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:29:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 21:29:03 +0000 From: RW 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: <20170112183632.GP26386@mailboy.kipshouse.net> <20170112211912.1ca1a74e@archlinux.localdomain> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.29; amd64-portbld-freebsd10.3) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 21:29:09 -0000 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.