From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D44BB431FB6 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:16:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none] autolearn=disabled Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3ONViV9yISjS for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:15:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from srv047132.webreus.nl (srv047132.webreus.nl [46.235.47.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2033431FAE for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:15:58 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 21730 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2013 19:15:57 +0100 Received: from 87-251-48-4.lombox.customer.bit.nl (HELO WBNL79005) (87.251.48.4) by srv047132.webreus.nl with SMTP; 28 Jan 2013 19:15:57 +0100 From: "Robert Mast" To: "'Jani Nikula'" , References: <000001cdfcd9$82500f00$86f02d00$@nl> <87wquxjq7k.fsf@nikula.org> In-Reply-To: <87wquxjq7k.fsf@nikula.org> Subject: RE: Reply all - issue Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:15:55 +0100 Message-ID: <002601cdfd83$83b283f0$8b178bd0$@nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac39agg6riWfWJCKSlivo9D6sTE32AAFOTnA Content-Language: nl X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:19:02 -0800 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:16:04 -0000 Thanks for your reply. I never tried gmail-conversation threading, but from your first reference I understand it breaks threads on subject unconditionally. Breaking on subject unconditionally would be even easier to implement, as comparing the contents of previous messages takes performance and as long as the crucial linking messages aren't read the outcome is ambiguous and would lead to the annoying jumping of results. I'll watch for 'client-end' solutions, but the mail that broke all those mailers originated from my own mailprogram, I think Outlook 2010, so automatic clearing references and in-reply-to when the user clears the subject and body isn't common practice for MUA's. Your point on patch-breaking related to gmail and my proposal isn't completely clear to me, but I've probably addressed it well with my new approach. I'll study the code for adding the option of unconditional (stripped) subject breaking on top of the existing thread-breaking.