On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 21:30 +0100, guenther wrote: > > > Note that there is an ambiguity in how you define duplicate messages. > > > Multiple downloading from pop server results in true duplicates, but the > > > "reply to all" generally does not (the headers will have minor > > > differences). > > > > Thanks for that. I didn't tell you that I use IMAP and the duplicates > > have to deleted over there. But indeed, there is a copy of the mails, > > because I use evolution often in offline mode (on my notebook), and have > > all my emails here. Do you think the script will work there too? > > > > Do you think the two emails 'reply to all' have different Message-ID's? > > No. "The headers will have minor differences" does not refer to the > Message-Id, but to the Received headers at a minimum. > > > > I think every email has an Message-ID. Why not just delete duplicates > > by Message-ID? I think also to mailing lists, the message id is the > > same. > > Yes, they will be the same when Replying to All. Anyway, Message-Id's > are not *guaranteed* to be unique. Although, granted, identical > Message-Id's for different mails are very rare. Yes, we had this > discussion pretty often in the past...
Because we don't WANT a mailing list message that's also cc'ed directly to the recipients to be considered a duplicate mail. This is the desired behavior on most linux development mailing lists like LKML where most recipients procmail the list mail into a separate folder, so you get messages CC'ed to you directly in your inbox, but the list folder preserves the threading. Personally I think we should just copy Mutt's implementation, I've never had it do the wrong thing. Lee _______________________________________________ Evolution-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
