RE: Motion P1788/M0034.01 Notation:NO
Vladik Kreinovich wrote:
> By threading, Vincent meant only that the subject appear on the subject line.
> I do think anyone attaches the whole chain, we only attach the part to which
> we reply
No, I was referring to tags such as:
| IN-REPLY-TO: <201206141553.q5EFrrB8002678@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| MESSAGE-ID: <4C5F914ECF9F5F4CA2DB475171D055C3CD8909957C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| REFERENCES: <20120614115926.GA25555@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,<201206141553.q5EFrrB8002678@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I used the message-id to construct my in-reply-to tag above. My question was
whether this was enough.
I used to think that the Subject: tag would be enough to maintain a
thread, but apparently that is not sufficient for some mail handlers.
Actually, there is a lot to be said for NOT depending on blind copying
of subject lines. The one we've been repeating here looks like a vote,
but that was just the spark of a discussion. So having an independent
thread id would be nice, but I'm not sure if there is a Mime format for
thread identification.
I certainly don't want to include the entire e-mail chain -- especially
not backwards, as most mail handlers seem to present it. In any case,
the receiving mail handler should replace them by cross-references, but
given the lack of standards for presenting the history, this is difficult
to automate. I do that for my incoming mail, but it is partially manual
because I have not been able to figure out a reliable way to program it.
(I do have helper macros to find the references.)
Michel.
---Sent: 2012-06-14 22:37:25 UTC