[OT] breaking thread MUA (WAS:Re: TSM30 source found!)
dd1email at gmail.com
Sat Oct 1 23:10:28 CEST 2011
Dmitry Chistikov, Oct. 02, 2011, 00:33 +0400:
> Michael Sokolov, Sep. 30, 2011, 19:14 +0000:
> > That's right, it doesn't. It is 30 y old and well predates those
> > conventions.
> (For me, reading broken threads is a rather unpleasant activity, and so it
> may be for a significant fraction of the community at large.)
Another bit, JFYI. RFC 2822 says:
RFC> reply messages SHOULD have "In-Reply-To:" and "References:" fields"
(the meaning of SHOULD is described in RFC 2119). Actually, I'm quite
surprised that your mail client, even if 30-year-old, does not insert
these fields, since they were described in RFC 724 as early as in 1979.
More information about the community