Hello Roelof Otten & everyone else, on 25-Sep-2005 at 00:29 you (Roelof Otten) wrote:
ASK>> IIRC correct the message-ID isn't absolutely mandatory, > RFC2822 says that it should be inserted by the mta when the mua > doesn't do so. That's rather mandatory, isn't it? Another day, another message... What I find in RFC 2822 is: .----- | Though optional, every message SHOULD have a "Message-ID:" field. | Furthermore, reply messages SHOULD have "In-Reply-To:" and | "References:" fields as appropriate, as described below. `----- Can you point me to the exact location of your findings about this? I have a similar topic open in the support forum of my domain/mail provider, would be nice to point them to the article. :-) I furthermore wonder how TB should behave when replying to messages without msg-id, especially if the message without msg-id already IS a reply, and does contain an "in-reply-to" header (thats what Outlook 2003 does, can you believe it?). As it is now, TB's picks the "in-reply-to" header and adds the content to the "references" header list - but it can't set a new "in-reply-to" header, because there's no msg-id to refer to. So, the threading information of the "references" list is broken, and viewing threads by references leads to a wrongly sorted message tree. Shouldn't it be omitted altogether? -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981) If you see a man approaching you with the obvious intention of doing you good, you should run for your life. ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.61.07 (Echo) | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
