| 1 |
On Thursday 05 October 2006 05:16, Vladimir G. Ivanovic wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 18:32 +0200, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wednesday 04 October 2006 18:25, Vladimir G. Ivanovic wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > My mail reader shows Patric's |
| 5 |
> > > original email to be a sub-thread of a previous email with a different |
| 6 |
> > > subject, but I would say that this is a bug in Evolution, not that |
| 7 |
> > > hijacking has occurred. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Huh? It shows as a subthread because of this header: |
| 10 |
> > > References: <200610030946.31015.gentoo@××××××××××××.com> |
| 11 |
> > > <200610031443.37094.bss03@××××××××××.net> |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Not because of the Subject header... |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I don't know about you, but I don't look at headers like References. So, |
| 16 |
> if the subject differ and the mailer says one is a reply to the other, I |
| 17 |
> consider that a bug. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> ---- Vladimir |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
no, it is the correct behaviour. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The subject is not a good way to determine, that a mail belong in a thread or |
| 24 |
not. RE, Re [RE], {AW}. is only one thing that changes in the subject. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Looking at the header is 'the standard', a mailer not doing it is inherently |
| 27 |
broken. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
And taking over threads, because you are too lazy to click on 'new mail' is |
| 30 |
even more broken. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives