Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/10/04/05:27:52
"Hughes, Bill" wrote:
> I have noticed that when I (have to) use outlook for any period there are
> two main effects:
> 1) I long for a real mail client.
> 2) I start to forget that real mail clients thread properly.
>
> This isn't a comment about any particular person but if you use outlook a
> lot you get used to a flat list of emails. MS half-baked attempt at
> threading 'View'->'By Conversation' doesn't do the job at all well and I
> don't use it, but it does (allegedly) group mails in the same thread
> together. It doesn't show the relationship - i.e. no tree structure, but it
> may help sometimes.
> And no, I can't change MUA, I would if I could but I can't.
The irony of this message is that your reply contains neither a
"In-Reply-To:" nor a "References:" header, containing the Message-Id of
the mail to which you're replying, so no proper mail reader will thread
it. I can't tell if you were demonstrating Outlook's crapulence or if
whatever program you normally use lacks proper threading header support
as well. It looks like your message does contain a "X-Msg-Ref:" header
containing a Message-Id, but the utility of this nonstandard header when
two standard ones already exist is beyond my comprehension.
At some point in Microsoft's past someone must have decided that
threading by subject-line only was a great idea, and that use of one or
both of the above standard headers for preserving the thread's tree
structure was a good idea. Whomever this person is, they need to be
sought out and methodically made to thread all mailing list archives for
every mailing list that has ever existed, by hand.
Brian
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -