On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 02:08:20PM +0100, Ingo Kl?cker wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> 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.

In this case, yes, the reply included quoted text.  

> 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.

I was thinking about this also. Sometimes a reply can consist of a new
subject (Found it!) and a body consisting soley of (It was on line 37,
sorry about being blind.), but still be part of a bigger thread.  I see
that every so often too.  

D.A.Bishop

_______________________________________________
KMail Developers mailing list
kmail@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail