Re: How threading works (was Re: Root Cause Re: 202401102221.AYC Re: Streamline The CG-NAT Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block)

["Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen () avinta com>]

Hi, Bryan:

1)    "  ...  Gmail is therefore in violation of the RFC5822. ... I 
think it's quite unreasonable to expect others to compensate for an MUA 
which doesn't implement 25+ year old standards properly. ...  ":

    I am so glad that you decided to come out to be a well-informed 
referee. For more than one year, I have been accused of breaking the 
eMail etiquette established by a standard, yet never identified. It 
seriously distracted our attention from the topic of essence. You now 
have demonstrated that the reverse appears to be the case. What a big 
surprise!

2)    If we have trouble to keep our communication tool's framework 
solid, we will be spending needless extra resources on technical 
discussions. This is not productive.

3)    Obviously, I am just barely able to read the exchanges on this 
thread due to so many terminologies that I have never heard of. I shall 
remain silent on this thread from now on, awaiting for you to lead us 
out of this puzzlement.

Sincerely and Best Regards,


Abe (2024-01-14 08:11 EST)



On 2024-01-14 03:53, Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 1/14/24 1:01 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> > Respectfully, your MUA is not the only MUA. Others work differently.
> Bill, I use multiple MUA's, among them Thunderbird, mutt, kmail and even the
> zimbra web interface.  All follow and implement RFC5822 as it pertains to
> threading.
>
> Note, threading works fine in the list archives too, but only displays two
> levels deep.
>
> > GMail, for example, follows the message IDs as you say but assumes
> > that if you change the subject line in your reply (more than adding
> > "Re:") then you intend to start a new thread from that point in the
> > discussion. It groups messages accordingly.
> Gmail is therefore in violation of the RFC5822.  It's quite clear how it
> should work per the RFC appendix.
>
> > This is not an unreasonable expectation: if you merely want to
> > continue the current conversation without going off on a new tangent
> > then there's no need for a different subject line.
> I think it's quite unreasonable to expect others to compensate for an MUA
> which doesn't implement 25+ year old standards properly.



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com