Hallo Peter, On Sun, 16 May 2004 17:16:30 +0200GMT (16-5-04, 17:16 +0200, where I live), you wrote:
PM> Hi Roelof, PM> excuse me for picking your reply - it could have been any other too. Never mind, I'm used to that kind of thing. ;-) PM> You probably saw it yourself. Only after Thomas pointed me to it, but I've been away from my system for a couple of hours. PM> All replies to Britt appear as a new PM> message except of one's own, which is threaded as usual. I guess that PM> Britt's message didn't have a message ID. So our servers added one. Yep, I guess that's what happened. PM> My question here: shouldn't the mailing list software provide a PM> message ID if there isn't one sent along with the message? It would be PM> useful in order to keep TB!'s threading by reference intact. Not the list software. It should be done by the first processing smtp server. That would be the server of Britt's ISP. But if that had happened, nobody would've seen the problem. The smtp servers on the list site also forget to include it, so it's up to the receiving smtp servers. As I receive TBUDL as a digest too (started for testing and kept it), I checked that message. It had these headers: >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From: "Britt Henrikson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Precedence: list >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Cc: >To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 14:48:18 +0200 >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Subject: Mail download + new line problems >Message: 3 The Precedence:, Reply-To: and Message: headers were inserted or altered by the list software, so it is possible that the Message-ID: headers was deleted during the processing, but since this is the first time we notice something like this I wouldn't want to bet serious money on that possibility. On the other hand, the message in the digest has lost its "X-mailer: Foxmail 5.0 [de]" header (that was present in the normal list message), so if the list software starts messing with that header, why not with the message id. Furthermore, the different orders in which the headers are listed in the list message and the (MIME) digest message suggest that the list server is altering more than strictly needed. On the other hand, I've tried Foxmail for myself some time ago and I was less than impressed with the way it was functioning, so it might be the culprit too. Now that I'm writing this, it was 12 March 2003 that I tried it, somebody was complaining that he couldn't get Foxmail to write to this list, if your local archive goes back that far, look at mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] because I could get it to post to the list, but that message-id is just like the kind of msg-id that my own server inserts when one is missing. This was my final conclusion: ro> Third attempt with Foxmail. This program is not quite rfc ro> compliant. It does all kind of illegal things with the address ro> headers. And some smtp-servers are more leniant than others. Let's say it was Foxmail's faulty behaviour and some erring mail servers on the way between. -- Groetjes, Roelof Disclaimer: Any opinion stated in this message is not necessarily shared by my budgies or rabbits. ________________________________________________ Current version is 2.10.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
