Markus,Is your RT 3.6.4 wired up to a public email address? Would you be up for letting me correspond with you a bit via your RT to try to track this down?
Thanks, Jesse On Jul 19, 2007, at 2:34 AM, Joop wrote:
Jesse Vincent wrote:I just had a look at my mail file of Thunderbird and did a search for 'In-Reply-To: <rt-3.6.1' which turned up only one hit the first email so I'll need to have a look at my old email archive to look back further. I didn't get any hits for 'In-Reply-To: <rt-3.6.2', and had a lot of hits for 'In-Reply-To: <rt-3.6.3', no hits yet for 'In-Reply-To: <rt-3.6.4'FWIW, yes. we did do a _lot_ of work on references and in-reply-to between 3.4.1 and 3.6. But most of it was to get _more correct_ header info. Looking at a random message coming off of our 3.6.3+devel instance, I see this: In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>And this behavior definitivly changed from 3.4.1 to 3.6.{3,4}.Precedence: bulk X-Rt-Loop-Prevention: bestpractical.com And things thread just fine.May be this helps in finding when problems started. Joop
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
