Hi,
--On Tuesday, March 12, 2002 10:10 AM +0000 Charles Lindsey
<chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> wrote:
|
|
| In <01KF8JCEOCBS0045PS(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com>
ned+ietf-822(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com writes:
|
| I am still sending this to both lists, with Reply-To to both.
|
|>> 3. Now I have just found another feature/bug.
|
|> I can't speak to news, but this is an issue that email software has had
|> to deal with for almost two decades now.
|
|>> Consider the following three msg-ids, all syntactically correct in RFC
|>> 2822:
|
|>> A. <Joe_Doe(_at_)[127(_dot_)0(_dot_)0(_dot_)1]>
|>> B. <"Joe_Doe"@[127.0.0.1]>
|>> C. <"Joe\_Doe"@[127\.0\.0\.1]>
|
|>> Question. Are those three semantically the same in RFC 2822?
|
|> Yes they are.
|
| So are you saying, for example, that mail readers which do threading based
| on the References line are programmed to take this into account? Seems a
| lot of unnecessary work to me.
|
| OK, here is an experiment. The Message-ID of your mail was
| <01KF8JCEOCBS0045PS(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com>. I have made the
References line in
| this message to be <"01KF8JCE\OCBS0045PS"@mauve.mrochek.com>.
|
| Hands up anybody with a threading mail reader that threaded my reply as a
| followup to yours (and hands down if it didn't).
|
Testing this with IMAP servers that implement the IMAP THREAD extension:
one worked, the other did not. I'll send in a report on that. I suspect
there also ought to be an explicit comment in that specification warning
about this issue.
--
Cyrus Daboo