[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 10:16:43AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > > Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > > > >> They are not stable. [...] > > > As I proposed for many times, why don't we add message number to each > > subject line in mail? For example like this: > > > > [HACKERS: 12345] Re: Not ready for 8.3 > > What I don't understand is why mailing list software doesn't use message > ID as primary index. Granted, it's ugly, but it is globally stable (and > hopefully unique) _across all mailboxes_
It does. The problem is that it only considers messages posted in the last calendar month. So on the 1st of each month, all threads "start again" as far as the archive goes. There is just one remaining problem: Outlook and derivatives don't set the In-Reply-To: nor References: headers. This breaks the threads (the best the software can do is group the messages by subject, but it works only partially). I've tried a coupld of times to decode how the Thread-Id stuff works, which is what Outlook seems to use, but I haven't been able to detect a pattern. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
