Cameron Simpson writes: > Discourse does not do `In-Reply-To:` very well at all. Here's some > headers from the _second_ post in the "Core dev sprint this year" > thread: > > Message-ID: > <topic/17208/[email protected]> > In-Reply-To: <topic/[email protected]> > References: <topic/[email protected]>
I'm tempted to write something uncivil, but instead I'm gonna go hug a puppy and weep. > So at present Discourse's email implementation is buggy. I need to > submit a bug report. Thank you! You may find it useful to cite RFC 5322, section 3.6.4, and emphasize "unique" while mentioning the algorithm for populating References and In-Reply-To presented there. > _However_, someone participating in "email mode" will of course send a > message with its own distinct message-id from their source system, and > that does not survive the email->discourse->email-out process. [...] > I don't expect that to change. That's just plain obnoxious. Anybody who's in the CCs who participates in "email mode" will get (practically speaking) unfilterable duplicates, and (if there is offline discussion) a bogus new thread. I wonder if this goes all the way through to the backend database (ie, the only id a message gets are its thread id, a timestamp, and some way to ensure a total order in the case of equal timestamps), and the only place in Discourse where the unique Message-ID appears is in the outgoing message. In that case getting any sanity in Discourse email could be very expensive for Discourse. Steve _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/FPSDSMP3NEV7K6ATTTS4ZQXDRZACF2OE/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
