Hi. On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 08:56:36AM -0700, pe...@easthope.ca wrote: > * From: Reco ?recovery...@enotuniq.net? > * Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 17:35:27 +0300 > > You're breaking threading. Just a friendly note. > > I've been adding References manually. By "breaking" do you refer to > omission of older references (For example, > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2019/07/msg01131.html has only two > references whereas it was about 8 from the original.)
This. And, I have to add, you're adding them wrong. What you do is a violation of RFC2822: References: e1hp6yw-0002kn...@enotuniq.net E1hpYQe-0000tm-Lx@dalton.invalid e1hpzan-0001lu...@enotuniq.net What sane MUA does to be RFC2822-compliant is: References: <e1hp6yw-0002kn...@enotuniq.net> <E1hpYQe-0000tm-Lx@dalton.invalid> <e1hpzan-0001lu...@enotuniq.net> > or to the presence of links labelled [ & # 128270; ]? ( <== Spaces > inserted to suppress character reference.) Does not bother me. You e-mails look somewhat unusual, but it's a part of my job to deal with malformed e-mails. I've seen stranger e-mails. It is a problem for other participants of this maillist though. > The omission is only that I failed to put all of them. Also, quoting RFC2822, The "References:" field will contain the contents of the parent's "References:" field (if any) followed by the contents of the parent's "Message-ID:" field (if any). So, the omission of certain values from parent's "References" also violates RFC2822. On a side note, your e-mails lack "In-Reply-To" header, and that can break threading for some MUAs. Again, RFC2822. In short, please consider using another e-mail client. Implementing RFC2822 by hand in every e-mail you write is something that should not require a human intervention. ktnxbye, Reco
