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

List:       pine-info
Subject:    Re: fcc to inbox
From:       Eduardo Chappa <chappa () math ! washington ! edu>
Date:       2002-04-23 18:30:29
[Download RAW message or body]

*** Tony Tung (tonytung@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU) wrote in the pine-info list today:

:) > I wonder at the reason for the redirection of the Fcc, from instead
:) > of going to the sent-mail folder, to the INBOX folder.
:)
:) It makes it easier to track a conversation.  I don't have to switch
:) back and forth between inbox and sent-mail.  It also makes the fancy
:) threading patch by Eduardo Chappa work a lot better.

The real problem has to do with the handling of the "References:" header
when replying to an e-mail message (or replying to a post in a newsgroup
only through e-mail). I also agree with you that your idea makes threads
look better. It's probable that the best thing to ask for is to ask the
Pine team to add the References header when replying by e-mail. This
header should be used according to RFC 2822, so it would be a good
improvement in Pine. The problems are that:

  - Pine does not generate the References header, if non existing,
    when replying only by e-mail, and

  - Pine drops the References header when replying by e-mail (not if the
    reply goes to a newsgroup, though).

  I modified the fancy thread patch so that Pine adds the References
header when replying by e-mail, precisely for the same reason that Tony
uses his INBOX as fcc folder. I hope this will help aliviate in part the
problem that Tony is trying to solve (this means that exchanging e-mail
between two patched versions of Pine will make threads look good, even if
the fcc is not INBOX, but exchanging e-mail with an unpatched version of
Pine will not, because of the reasons explained above).

-- 
Eduardo
http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/pine/


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