Re: How about the editing threads and attachment counting patches?
On 2005-02-24 17:00:17 +0100, René Clerc wrote:
> * Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> [24-02-2005 16:52]:
> > This would be interesting, but if I understand the patch, it updates
> > both "References:" and "In-Reply-To:". However, this would be incorrect
> > if one wants to attach a message to its grand-parent for instance.
>
> What is actually incorrect?
The fact that the patch modifies "In-Reply-To:".
> The patch is meant to be able to fix threads, that are broken by
> crappy mailers.
There are two ways to fix threads: modify "References:" and modify
"In-Reply-To:". The second solution may be incorrect.
> Indeed, the patch can be used to create you're own fabulous looking
> thread tree.. But I don't see anything wrong with that? If I want to
> specify that a certain message is a reply to an other certain
> message, what's the deal?
One may also want to add a message as a reference to another one
(though it is not a reply). Consider for instance:
A
`-> B
`-> C
If one deletes B (because it isn't interesting -- it may also be
absent from the beginning because a user forgot a Cc), then this
could break the thread because some mailers don't support the
"References:" header. Then the function that links the messages
should add a "References:" header, but not a Reply-To header.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA