On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 11:18:38PM +0900, Dennis Oelkers wrote:
> Hello David, ruby-talk, c.l.r.,
> 
> David A. Black wrote:
> >The remaining problem seems to be subject lines with "Re:" in them,
> >when there are no In-Reply-To and References: headers.  This
> >apparently makes the NNTP server flag the message as a followup and
> >then be unhappy because there's no reference.  
> 
> My further investigations proved that this is really the problem. The
> symptoms are the same as with the first problem (I get a 441 - "Followup
> without a reference" - when posting the mail to the newsgroup), but this
> time the solution is non-trivial. The first case ("In-Reply-To" flag in
> header but not "References" flag) was solved by adding the missing flag
> by duplicating the message-id of the "In-Reply-To" flag. In this case
> both flags are missing. The MUA which was used by Austin Ziegler adds
> "Thread-Topic" / "Thread-Index" flags to the header which are supposed
> to solve the threading, but this is not applicable to Usenet.

Arg, *bleeping* Microsoft *bleeping* us all again, by ignoring an
established standard, and instead inventing their own...

If they at least had the courtesy to add in the normal headers too,
it's not like it's rocket science, but no..

If someone could figure out what the *bleep* Thread-Index is, it might
be possible, with a lot of state on the gateway, to make an educated
guess at where it was supposed to be in the thread and fake the
appropiate headers.

An alternative would be storing the last message-id for each 'topic',
and just pretend that the MS mails was replies to that. It's cheaper
and and should usually gets the message in the right region.

I'm afraid that the suggestion to remove the 'Re' might actually screw
the only defence we have against the problem, subject matching. I
don't know about other MUAs, but Mutt tries to put the messages
somewhere 'right' in the threads, by using subject matching and
ordering by date. I donno if the munging might pose problematic
there.

> This leads to the conclusion that we have three possible solutions:
> - Add an "In-Reply-To"/"References" flag to the header by using the
>   message-id of THAT mail => the message would appear on c.l.r., but
>   threading would be broken

I'm not sure how mutt would react to this. Or any other using the same
technique (I believe there is other clients doing the same thing).

> - drop the message on the floor at the gateway => ruby-talk / c.l.r.
>   are inconsistent

Not an option, I'd say.

> - my solution: as mua's are more or less allowed to do whatever they
>   want my fear is that we get more and more of such borderline cases
>   so the only solution is that we establish identical posting policies
>   on both the mailing-list host and the gateway/nntp host we're posting
>   too. (ML-Maintainers? Any Comments on this one?)

Oh, a world without Outlook.. As much as I'd love to see that, it's
not an option either. Unless someone could come up with a gateway that
fixes posts from Outlook. Secondly, there's webmails out there that
has similar problems.

-- 
Thomas
beast / system-tnt.dk