Some mail clients honor the 'in reply to" field, some don't, some
don't insert it, some SMTP servers aren't configured to pass it
on ... all in all, it's a mess.
Godfrey
On Apr 26, 2006, at 4:20 PM, John Francis wrote:
What's stupid? Software that (correctly) threads messages
based on the In-Reply-To and MessageID headers, or software
that thinks threads need to be built based on the subject line?
What's, dumb, if you ask me, is software that refuses to show
you those headers, or to let you change them. But software
that puts a message into the same thread as a post made five
years ago, just because the subject line happens to be the
same, comes pretty close to it on the stupidity front.
(Yes - you have been screwing up the archives)
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 05:08:04PM -0600, Tom C wrote:
Well THAT'S STUPID! One would think the software would be smart
enough to
see that the header line had changed and start a new thread. Do
you mean
I've been screwing up the archives all these years and know one
here has
SCREAMED THEIR HEAD OFF at me?
Tom C.
From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: List Question
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:16:47 -0400
Properly formated threads don't depend on the subject line.
Properly
formed threads use the "in reply to" field, in the message header
IIRC.
Tom C wrote:
I, as many others are having problems receiving all the messages
fron the
list, often not my own. I'm not blaming this on any of the PDML
list
inner workings. Is is in general aggravating.
I am curious though... Sometimes I'll reply to an existing PDML
e-mail in
order to have the
[email protected] appear automatically in the To: field.
I then
erase the body of the message and substitute my own subject line.
However, when I look in the archives, I see my sent message
embedded in
the earlier thread ***even though the subject line has changed***.
Tom C.
--
When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and
shout).
