Re: Problem with strict_threads
On Thursday 5 July 2018 23:17, Erik Christiansen put forth the proposition: > On 05.07.18 13:39, David Woodfall wrote: > > I've noticed now that my replies in that thread don't have a > > In-Reply-To for some reason. When I tag one and attach it with & as > > you said it joins fine and adds that. > > > > Why wouldn't mutt add that? It works fine eg in lists. > > It's ticked over 23:00 here, and I'm not recalling anything on the > missing In-Reply-To headers, but if there's still poor threading after > that's fixed, then here's what my notes say I did, back when: > > Debug: Maillist posts, lacking In-Reply-To or References headers, and with >"Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re:" pollution in the Subject, started multiple >threads, and mutt didn't cope: > Diagn: :set ? strict_threads >strict_threads is unset >:set ? sort_re >sort_re is set ># Default reply_regexp is simplistic, though. > Fix: Added in .muttrc: ># Note: Keep reply_regexp lower-case, to keep it case-insensitive. ># >set reply_regexp="^(((re(\\[[0-9]\\])?|aw|fw|fwd|\\?\\?|):)[ \t]*)+" > > There are even fancier regexes in the list archive, back in 2009/2010, > but they have more ambitious agendas. > > Erik I found the problem: PEBKAC My vim mailer function that deletes Cc and Bcc lines was leaving spaces and the In-Reply-To header line was under those so it wasn't seen as being a header and not added... -D -- Linux is obsolete -- Andrew Tanenbaum .--. oo ()// ~'
Re: Problem with strict_threads
On 05.07.18 13:39, David Woodfall wrote: > I've noticed now that my replies in that thread don't have a > In-Reply-To for some reason. When I tag one and attach it with & as > you said it joins fine and adds that. > > Why wouldn't mutt add that? It works fine eg in lists. It's ticked over 23:00 here, and I'm not recalling anything on the missing In-Reply-To headers, but if there's still poor threading after that's fixed, then here's what my notes say I did, back when: Debug: Maillist posts, lacking In-Reply-To or References headers, and with "Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re:" pollution in the Subject, started multiple threads, and mutt didn't cope: Diagn: :set ? strict_threads strict_threads is unset :set ? sort_re sort_re is set # Default reply_regexp is simplistic, though. Fix: Added in .muttrc: # Note: Keep reply_regexp lower-case, to keep it case-insensitive. # set reply_regexp="^(((re(\\[[0-9]\\])?|aw|fw|fwd|\\?\\?|):)[ \t]*)+" There are even fancier regexes in the list archive, back in 2009/2010, but they have more ambitious agendas. Erik
Re: Problem with strict_threads
On Thursday 5 July 2018 22:20, Erik Christiansen put forth the proposition: > On 05.07.18 12:53, David Woodfall wrote: > > I've just set up things so that record=^ which works fine, and I > > copied a bunch of old sent messages to a folder to see the whole > > thread. However I see the thread order is broken. > > OK, we have "set sort=threads", as the above implies some threads > showing. Yeah, I have sort=threads by default on every folder except =Sent and =Trash > > I tried setting strict_threads but it doesn't help. > > That just reduces threading, by disabling pseudo-threading. > Having $strict_threads and $sort_re unset should compensate for missing > threading headers, perhaps too much, if a subject recurs in later > threads. > > > EG I have a thread with a friend (he uses the email app in Win10 and > > the messages have outlook.com IDs) and checked all his Message-ID and > > all my In-Reply-To and they look like they should match properly. > > Each message contains the correct ID and Reference AFAICS. > > > > Any ideas what to try to solve this? > > What happens to the headers when you use & to join a tagged mail to a > thread? Presumably the thread display is now OK, and the change in the > headers will show whether it's In-Reply-To or a Reference that was > missing. (Whenever I've done that, mutt has added an In-Reply-To, IIRC.) I added a couple of binds to toggle on/off In-Reply-To and Message-ID. I've noticed now that my replies in that thread don't have a In-Reply-To for some reason. When I tag one and attach it with & as you said it joins fine and adds that. Why wouldn't mutt add that? It works fine eg in lists. -D > Erik -- In short, at least give the penguin a fair viewing. If you still don't like it, that's ok: that's why I'm boss. I simply know better than you do. -- Linus "what, me arrogant?" Torvalds, on c.o.l.advocacy .--. oo ()// ~'
Re: Problem with strict_threads
On 05.07.18 12:53, David Woodfall wrote: > I've just set up things so that record=^ which works fine, and I > copied a bunch of old sent messages to a folder to see the whole > thread. However I see the thread order is broken. OK, we have "set sort=threads", as the above implies some threads showing. > I tried setting strict_threads but it doesn't help. That just reduces threading, by disabling pseudo-threading. Having $strict_threads and $sort_re unset should compensate for missing threading headers, perhaps too much, if a subject recurs in later threads. > EG I have a thread with a friend (he uses the email app in Win10 and > the messages have outlook.com IDs) and checked all his Message-ID and > all my In-Reply-To and they look like they should match properly. > Each message contains the correct ID and Reference AFAICS. > > Any ideas what to try to solve this? What happens to the headers when you use & to join a tagged mail to a thread? Presumably the thread display is now OK, and the change in the headers will show whether it's In-Reply-To or a Reference that was missing. (Whenever I've done that, mutt has added an In-Reply-To, IIRC.) Erik
