[buug] mail threading [Was: Iceweasel / Firefox]

[Pewter Bot]

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:

> I'm very sorry to say that I have no time and energy to attempt to debug
> GMail's headers.  I didn't mention the problem (and wouldn't have) in
> the first place; Ian did.

Yes, and Ian should follow up, if this is so important to him. But
thanks for your input, just the same.

> And even if I did have time and energy
> available to figure out what was wrong with GMail's implementation of
> SMTP headers, it would still be a corporate-owned piece of proprietary
> software, which I have no interest in spending my time fixing.

Just found this statement on
https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/fetchmail-users/2009-April/001883.html:

"To the best of my knowledge, GMail is not fully RFC compliant and does
strange things with labels, folders, and deletion."

But finding the specific RFC violations is another kettle of fish.
Gmail may or  may not be RFC compliant when it comes to any part of
the full header. And RFC problems w/Gmail may only be limited to POP,
not web.

I only suggested gmail may be the culprit...which is not the same
thing as claiming it actually is. Now, I don't plan to use gmail for
more than several more months...that will be the last Google service I
ever use. But I don't want to condemn gmail, or any other service, for
unfounded rationale...in this case, for breaking mailing list threads.

There are at *least* two other participants in this mailing list, who
use gmail. Are they also causing broken threads? Plus, I'm certain
this list will have an increasing number of gmail users in the near
future.

Hey, I'm as anal retentive as the next geek, but if Ian is so bothered
by this thread-breaking, it would seem he'd be at least as annoyed
over failure of almost every participant to trim their quotes...rather
than just piling old messages on top of old messages ad infinitum (or
until that particular thread dies).

I would like to know why this formerly strict rule in mailing
lists--at least by *nix advocates--has been allowed to fall by the
wayside. I remember when you'd be dragged across the cyber-coals for
not trimming your quotes...and keeping them to the barest minimum.

And it's not like maintaining this useful rule is so difficult.
Typically, the list mgr. would just bounce a non-trimmed message back
to the sender, requesting that he or she trim the post, and re-send.
100% effective in teaching newbies how to comply...and in keeping
others from getting lazy.

Anywayz, it's only an assumption that gmail is the culprit. Obviously,
the header lines I posted do not off the bat, give us a clue, else I'm
sure you'd spot it, Rick.

Nor has Ian's referring me to the RFC manual been any *real* help, if
he does not point me to whatever aspect of RFC non-compliance he has
in mind. Were he really so concerned, seems he would have bothered to
be at least a little more helpful. The RFC page is a complete listing
of all the rules...and I'm supposed to play a guessing game over which
one I've supposedly broken?

And it also seems rather disingenuous and hypocrticial to moan over
broken threads, when there's not a peep over non-trimming quotes,
reposting the same thread over and over again, in each message.

I do copy and paste a message to which I'm responding, from a digest
email. I insert the appropriate subject header (adding [buug] if not
there already, also "Re:"). And this may prove to be the actual
"culprit", not gmail. Because in such a case I am not carrying over
this original MUA, right?

Sometimes I respond directly to an indivual email, leaving out the
addie to the sender, and just keeping the one to BUUG (moving it from
"cc" to :send"). And in this case, the thread is not broken.

The archives seem to reconstruct the threads based on subject title,
rather than MUA...and that is why it appears all copasetic.

Did I figure out the problem; have I thought this through correctly?

Rick, I don't expect you to reply further, as you don't care to waste
your time with gmail crap. if Ian would be so kind as to respond, that
would be good.