"Prof. A Olowofoyeku (The African Chief)" wrote:
On 19 Oct 2004 at 5:41, CBFalconer wrote:
"Prof A Olowofoyeku (The African Chief)" wrote:
On 18 Oct 2004 at 12:20, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
[...]
Good. I'll do this for the next release. (Finally a temporary workaround that was really temporary. :-)
Indeed - a good result ... ;)
In this entire exchange nothing gets correctly threaded here. I believe this is due to your newsreader chopping off the references line.
What newsreader? I get all this by email and reply by email too.
So do I, but the reader does proper threading and referencing. See RFC2822. A small excerpt follows:
The "References:" field will contain the contents of the parent's "References:" field (if any) followed by the contents of the parent's "Message-ID:" field (if any). If the parent message does not contain a "References:" field but does have an "In-Reply-To:" field containing a single message identifier, then the "References:" field will contain the contents of the parent's "In-Reply-To:" field followed by the contents of the parent's "Message-ID:" field (if any). If the parent has none of the "References:", "In-Reply-To:", or "Message-ID:" fields, then the new message will have no "References:" field.
Note: Some implementations parse the "References:" field to display the "thread of the discussion". These implementations assume that each new message is a reply to a single parent and hence that they can walk backwards through the "References:" field to find the parent of each message listed there. Therefore, trying to form a "References:" field for a reply that has multiple parents is discouraged and how to do so is not defined in this document.