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 104A0431FBD for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 09:48:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 71QgLFBC2ztY for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 09:48:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu [18.7.68.36]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05FFE431FBC for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 09:48:17 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 12074424-f79e26d000000c70-72-5353fa5035b5 Received: from mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.36]) (using TLS with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-7.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 6F.84.03184.15AF3535; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 12:48:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id s3KGmFND030104 for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 12:48:16 -0400 Received: from awakening.csail.mit.edu (awakening.csail.mit.edu [18.26.4.91]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as amdragon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id s3KGmD0K007793 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 12:48:15 -0400 Received: from amthrax by awakening.csail.mit.edu with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Wbuua-0005a5-Qi for notmuch@notmuchmail.org; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 12:48:12 -0400 Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 12:48:12 -0400 From: Austin Clements To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: excessive thread fusing Message-ID: <20140420164812.GB25817@mit.edu> References: <87ioq5mrbz.fsf@maritornes.cs.unb.ca> <20140419210439.GC1797@sid.nuvreauspam> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140419210439.GC1797@sid.nuvreauspam> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrHIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixG6nohv4KzjYYMkcZovrN2cyOzB6PFt1 izmAMYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoErY9fODSwFE3gqzmzezNTAeIqzi5GTQ0LAROL2rpVsELaYxIV7 64FsLg4hgdlMEh9urWeEcM4zSpw+0QCVeckkMf3LV2YI5xCjxISZ24DKODhYBFQl3mw2AhnF JqAhsW3/ckYQW0RAWmLn3dmsILawgIrExjOzmUBsXgEdidmbWqHmNDJK9D3bwgaREJQ4OfMJ C4jNLKAlcePfSyaQ+cxAg5b/4wAJcwKd3fzgDjOILQo0c8rJbWwTGAVnIemehaR7FkL3Akbm VYyyKblVurmJmTnFqcm6xcmJeXmpRbrmermZJXqpKaWbGMHB6qKyg7H5kNIhRgEORiUe3hc/ goKFWBPLiitzDzFKcjApifIWfA4OFuJLyk+pzEgszogvKs1JLQaGBwezkgjvyZdAOd6UxMqq 1KJ8mJQ0B4uSOO9ba6tgIYH0xJLU7NTUgtQimKwMB4eSBG80yFDBotT01Iq0zJwShDQTByfI cB6g4T0gNbzFBYm5xZnpEPlTjIpS4rwmX4ASAiCJjNI8uF5YMnnFKA70ijBvLEg7DzARwXW/ AhrMBDT475kAkMEliQgpqQbGLcsS0sxNNq9YqK85PXoT247X37WC5A14UiVLFlxoVbr9+tHT sG/HLhmbB925t2XnYUu3A2f27j/7nEV64c2FzbPCn8y9k5P8vNQs53fD+Z9aJfetdldMnq/d Kyl8w/FN09RtKicS9AqPF84ttz28dtfv5bHxt1McpwZ0FckdTOnynnGpTuYUpxJLcUaioRZz UXEiAPjCPzQBAwAA 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: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:48:26 -0000 Quoth Andrei POPESCU on Apr 20 at 12:04 am: > On Sb, 19 apr 14, 18:52:02, Eric wrote: > > > > This may not actually be any help, but both hypermail and mhonarc agree > > that two messages form a separate thread from the rest. I believe that > > the latter, at least, is the JWZ algorithm. > > mutt concurs. Can anyone explain why JWZ *doesn't* have the same problem? I don't see how this heuristic doesn't doom it to the same fate: The References field is populated from the ``References'' and/or ``In-Reply-To'' headers. If both headers exist, take the first thing in the In-Reply-To header that looks like a Message-ID, and append it to the References header. Given this, even considering only messages 18 and 52 (which "should" be in different threads), JWZ should find the common "parent" e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk and link them in to the same thread: Add 18 (step 1) - The combined "references" list is - Creates and links containers 17 <- e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk <- 18 where the first two are empty Add 52 (step 1) - The combined "references" list is - Creates and links containers 31 <- 32 <- 39 - Also considers container e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk, but this is already linked, so it doesn't change it - Creates container 52 and links e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk <- 52 (step 1C) 18 and 52 will later get promoted over their empty parent (step 4), but will remain in the same thread. What am I missing? Or are these other MUAs not using pure JWZ?