From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net)
Date: Sat Jul 03 2004 - 18:37:30 CDT
In <40E5EE51.694@xyzzy.claranet.de>, on 07/03/2004
at 01:22 AM, Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> said:
>See my reply to Eivind, the original article was a genuine control
>cancel message with Subject: cmsg cancel <whatever>
Okay, and you should have already seen the solution to that; encode
"cmsg" so it won't be treated as having special significance.
>We want compatibility with RfC 2822.
RFC 2822 doesn't treat "cmsg" as special. If you want compatibility
with RFC 2822, then the proper text is a statement that Subject has
the syntax and semantics defined in RFC 2822, with nothing added. The
"Re: " argument is about adding text that is *not* compatible with RFC
2822.
>Yes, Google also disagrees with you, and sometimes displays the same
>Subject: as one thread, even if the Date: differs by several years.
>Of course Google's definition is broken.
Exactly: two articles or two messages that do not have a common
ancestor cannot be considered to be in the same thread by any
reasonable definition, and software that treats them as the same
thread is broken as defined by the reader.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2 <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)