<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: link-threads: No Message-ID ???



* Patrick Shanahan <WideGlide@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2004:01:20:19:48:44-0500] scribed:
> * Michael D Schleif <mds@xxxxxxxxxxx> [01-20-04 18:37]:
> > Normally, breaking and linking threads is a no-brainer.  I do these all
> > of the time, and I am satisfied.
>  [snip ...] 
> > Clearly, each message contains a Message-ID header, so this message
> > provides me with few clues to establish root cause.  Nevertheless, I
> > think that this has something to do with the _format_ of the
> > Message-ID's; but, what are Mutt's requirements in this regard?
> 
> AIII, threads are _very_ similar subjects and/or message-id's as,
> msg1, msg2(w/msgId1,msgId2), msg3(w/msgId1,msgId2,msgId3), ......
> 
> Your examples contain dis-similar subjects and neither contains the
> msg-id of the other

Interesting -- but, wrong regarding mutt's <link-threads>.  For one
thing, when I make the subjects identical in my first two examples,
<link-threads> continues to fail.

Second, and more to the point, consider the following simple messages:

   From Jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Tue Jan 13 14:45:11 2004
   Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:43:13 -0600
   From: Jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   To: Mike Schleif <mds@xxxxxxxxxxx>
   Subject: TEST #3
   Message-ID: <20040113T144313Z_CABA00040000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
   Content-Disposition: inline

   TEST #3


   From Jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fri Jan  9 11:15:31 2004
   Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:12:00 -0600
   From: Jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   To: Mike Schleif <mds@xxxxxxxxxxx>
   Subject: TEST #4
   Message-ID: <20040109T111200Z_CABA00040000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
   Content-Disposition: inline

   TEST #4


Using mutt's <link-threads>, I can link either the first to the second,
or the second to the first, with no problem at all ;>

The only difference that I see between the two (2) sets of examples is,
that Message-ID's in the first pair of examples do *not* use the format
domain.TLD after the `@'.  I do not see how that violates RFC 822 nor
RFC 1521, where it stipulates that the _only_ requirement is that each
Message-ID is globally unique, and it suggests one possible means to
that end is _timestamp_@_this_host_.

Nevertheless, I suspect that this is the case, that mutt expects the
form _some_string_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx  If so, I would like an explanation.

If not, then I still need an explanation ;>

-- 
Best Regards,

mds
mds resource
877.596.8237
-
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
-
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
we think we know.  The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
--

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature