Threading is foobared?

[Mark Sapiro]

Random832 wrote:

> Any chance that it could fix reference headers to match?
> 
> Actually, merely prepending the original Message-ID itself to the
> references header might be enough to change the reply's situation from
> "nephew" ("reply to [missing] sibling") to "grandchild" ("reply to
> [missing] reply"), which might be good enough to make threading work
> right on most clients, and would be *easy* (whereas maintaining an
> ongoing reversible mapping may not be).
> 
> And if it's not too much additional work, maybe throw in an
> X-Mailman-Original-Message-ID (and -References if anything is done with
> that) field, so that the original state can be recovered.


I think these are good ideas. I'm going to try to do something along
these lines.


> Rather than exclusively rewriting for usenet, maybe the rewritten
> headers could also be included in outgoing emails and the archive?
> 
> Putting it in outgoing emails would solve the problem entirely, though
> it would mean people get duplicates if they're subscribed to multiple
> lists to which something is posted or get CC'd. The archive wouldn't
> have this issue.


This is more difficult since archiving, gatewaying to Usenet and
delivery to list members are asynchronous processes that have no way to
communicate with each other.

It could be accomplished by doing a Usenet check in the incoming
pipeline and putting the Mailman Message-ID in the message metadata or
doing the mods at that point, but I don't think I want to expand the
scope of something that is non RFC compliant in the first place.

I need to think about these things some more.

-- 
Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net>        The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California    better use your sense - B. Dylan