Rolf wrote: > I have attached a snippet of what things look like when your mail > systems start 'truncating' headers. It means that the associations of > the mails are lost. I guess you are saying that the header is supposed to track the many layers of "threads" the message is in reply to? Seems a bit silly, although I can certainly believe someone cooked up a "standard" for that. In theory, the chain could be infinitely long. Sounds like a good solution would be to completely delete that part of the header. If I did things right, all that thread nonsense should be reset with this message. > This is akin to a person not using correct > comments in the code. Not even remotely. For one thing, these thread references are purely machine generated. > In this case, your systems are broken. I guess by this thread tracking standard. > Fixing this is of some significance, and not just for me. Actually I think your biggest gripe is that it breaks the way you chose to look at PIClist threads. > The internet > archives all have the wrong reference chains for your mails. No, only some. The official PIClist message archive seems to get it right, and that's the only one I ever use. It gets it right probably because James realized that this thread tracking standard can not be relied on and found some other way to determine threads, probably from the subject line. Maybe you should use the subject line too instead of relying on everyone adhering to this standard. > This can > lead to confusion for people trying to follow a discussion. This > thread > in Nabble, for example, is broken the same way as I see it in my > reader. Oh well. That puts it at about 1000 on my list of 100 things to worry about. ******************************************************************** Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000. -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist