On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:54:20 +0100, Marten Veldthuis <mar...@veldthuis.com> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:30:13 -0800, Carl Worth <cwo...@cworth.org> wrote: > > But I still have a hard time justifying user operations to manipulate > > threading. The whole point of threading is to make it faster to process > > and read messages. But manual operations like joining and splitting > > threads seem like the user just doing more work, and that *after* having > > read the messages. So that seems mostly backwards to me. > > By the way, Outlook & Exchange suck (or at least some versions do), and > don't seem to generate In-Reply-To and References: headers. Just got a > mail which prompted me to write this mail. I'd really like to be able to > join messages in a case like this.
It's actually worse than that. I was looking into why some of my threads weren't coalescing. Some of it seems to be a very difficult bug DB that doesn't use identical Message-ID's to refer to the parent bug mail. I don't know how that works at all. Sometimes it uses the same Message-ID, but sometimes it changes a number in the ID. However, this isn't the worst news, because I work with a lot of Exchange users, and I noticed that their mail was also refusing to thread. I was looking at the message bodies, and they led me to these links about mail processing. The problem identified: http://blog.postmaster.gr/2007/12/11/trying-to-make-use-of-outlooks-thread-index-header/ How to read it, or how Exchange goes its own way: http://blog.postmaster.gr/2007/12/23/more-fun-with-message-threading/ With a fairly loose understanding of how notmuch detects threads, and how much information it places in the Xapian database (only the msg-id?), I can't suggest much of the how. But I would like to propose that we consider handling the Exchange non-standard threading method as well as the RFC822 threading in the headers. Reactions? -Mark _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch