* 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