Olin Lathrop wrote:
> 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.
>
>   

1. Right, it tracks how e-mails interrelate.

2. Seems silly to you, not everyone.

3. It *is* a standard See section 3.6.4 of IETF RFC2822, and it was also 
specified in RFC822 (the original 'e-mail' specification in 1982), and 
then again in RFC733 in 1977 (the ARPA Text Messages standard), and then 
before that in RFC724 (also 1977), RFC680 (1975). The References header 
is not exactly a 'new thing'. As for long lines, e-mail headers *never* 
had a maximum length until the latest specification RFC2822, where the 
length was limited to 998 characters. While previous specifications like 
RFC733 first mention that long header lines may be 'folded' for 
readability....

>    Each header item (field of the message) may be represented on
>    exactly  one line consisting of the name of the field and its
>    body; this is what the parser sees.  For readability,  it  is
>    recommended  that the field-body portion of long header items
>    be "folded" onto multiple lines of the actual header.  "Long"
>    is  commonly  interpreted  to  mean  greater  than  65  or 72
>    characters.  The former length is recommended as a limit, but
>    it is not imposed by this standard.

So, e-mail has been standardized for a long time. References header 
field has been around for a long time.

Further, you have written e-mail handing software yourself. You should 
have read each and every one of these standards, (well, maybe not 
RCF2822 which was probably after you wrote your e-mail programs). 
Claiming ignorance of these standards, and treating them off-handedly is 
disingenuous.


4. Yes, the chain could be infinitely long.
5. As for why you think this is a problem requiring a solution I am 
unsure... the only problem is your POP3 server it seems which is unable 
to handle specifications older than the web itself.
6. yes, you have effectively 'reset' the thread

>> 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.
>
>   
No, it is broken according to RFC2822 which is the 'e-mail' 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.
>
>   
This is why it irritates me, because when you reply to messages I can't 
see what message you are replying to easily. This is especially 
important because you often 'snip' out important context information 
from your replies. It is always important to put people in general, and 
you in particular in to a context where you can make a better attempt at 
understanding a person's perspective.
>> 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.
>
>   
No, the piclist gets it wrong too. It only tracks things by subject 
line... so, I will 'break' piclist with this mail by mistyping the 
subject line.
>> 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.
>
>   
Right, let's see if I understand you correctly:

I have a problem with a POP3 server.
It does not affect me directly (anyway, I like to complain about other 
people having lines too long that they get truncated....)
It *does* affect some other people
The one person it affects is Rolf, and he's been pestering me for a 
while now.
*Everyone* who uses Nabble is a jerk, so that makes it even less attractive.
So, let's screw it up for the others too just to spite Rolf (and perhaps 
the Nabble users).


Is that it?

Rolf

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist