On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 01:59:44AM -0400, P Kapat wrote: > On Saturday 28 April 2007 12:46:48 am Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:52:26AM -0400, P Kapat wrote: > > > On 4/28/07, P Kapat <kap4lin@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >I googled around a little bit, and did some simple mailing-replying > > > >actions.. It seems like gmail uses "subject" for threading the > > > >conversations. Kmail uses something else (i guess, In-Reply-To). Not > > > >just that, when you change the subject line when replying to a > > > >thread/conversation using gmail, it "removes" the In-Reply-To header; > > > >as a consequence any MUA ( i think) will get that messsage wrongly > > > >threaded. So, to me it seems like a problem with gmail's mailing > > > >system rather than MUA at the reading end... To prove the point > > > >(hopefully!), my next mail on this thread (using gmail) will have a > > > >modified subject line, check if the In-Reply-To header is removed, or > > > >whether it is threaded in a proper way with whichever MUA you use at > > > >your end.. > > > > > > OK, heres I am "replying" to my own mail from gmail, after editing the > > > subject line... > > > > indeed the threading is broken here in mutt. And you're right, the > > In-Reply-To header is gone. looks like gmail is broken there. > > > > A > > This might be getting out of hand and a futile exercise in the end. But one > last time, let me add a modification... > > This mail, with re-edited subject is being sent from Kmail using > smtp.gmail.com pop server. I am hoping that the In-Reply-To header will > remain with the mail and a "decent" MUA (like KMail, mutt, Evolution, ...) > will be able to thread it properly (ie, not a new thread). But those of you > who are reading it using gmail will see this as a "new thread/conversation". works in mutt here. In-Reply-To is intact and matches the message-id from the previous. A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature