[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Re: [Bug 54474] changing subject does not break thread
From:       Ingo =?iso-8859-1?q?Kl=F6cker?= <kloecker () kde ! org>
Date:       2003-02-16 13:08:20
[Download RAW message or body]

On Saturday 15 February 2003 20:07, David Bishop wrote:
> On Saturday 15 February 2003 10:14 am, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> > * Don Sanders -- Saturday 15 February 2003 18:10:
> > > Inspecting the bodies of mails during threading time would
> > > require calling getMsg on those mails and hence be slow.
> >
> > The most efficient (and IMHO acceptable) thing would be to only
> > check for "\bRe:\s" in the subject. Every correctly changed subject
> > has to contain Re:, either at the beginning or in a "(was: Re: old
> > subject)". Otherwise chances are very high that a message doesn't
> > belong to a given thread. A message box that pops up if someone hit
> > reply and has no "Re:" in the subject, would be annoying enough for
> > newbies to learn not to misuse the reply function.  ;-).
>
> See attached for a fairly common usage that doesn't fit into that
> pattern.  I see this at least once or twice a week.

I'd like to know whether in this case the reply with the completely 
different subject contains any quoted text. If not, then not even my 
proposal to look for quoted text would prevent the thread from being 
broken. And this would mean that we would treat replies from 
experienced users (who deliberately change the subject and don't quote 
any text because it's unnecessary as every MUA should thread the 
message correctly due to the In-reply-to header) the same way as wrong 
replies from newbies. Of course an experienced user should probably 
have added a (was: old subject) to his reply. But nevertheless I don't 
think we should punish experienced users by breaking their threads just 
because some newbies make stupid things.

Therefore I'm not sure if automatically breaking threads is worth 
implementing with regard to all the different cases in which a thread 
should resp. should not be broken. Instead I'm very much in favor of a 
"Break Thread" action which would simply remove the In-reply-to and the 
References headers.

Regards,
Ingo


[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]
_______________________________________________
KMail Developers mailing list
kmail@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]