Threading is foobared?

[Mark Sapiro]

Mark Sapiro wrote:
> 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.


This is now implemented on mail.python.org for python-list at python.org
and the others that gateway to Usenet.

I hope this will mitigate at least some of the threading issues.

As noted earlier in this thread, the original Message-ID: is appended,
not prepended to References:. More specifically, if there is a
References: header, the original Message-ID: is appended. If not, one is
created with the In-Reply-To: value if any and the original Message-ID:.

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