Cedric, I agree with you. Additional points:
1 - I used to rethread my mailboxes manually before I heard of your patch, useing mutt's "edit" message command, so you patch just automates what I can and did do manually. 2 - Is somebody describing this as a "security hole"? If so, that's dumb, I can send you any mail I want, with entirely spoofed headers. Nothing your patch does or can do changes that. 3 - If I send you a reply, and I have changed it's in-reply-to and references, and that changes the threading in your mailbox, its because *I*, the sender of the email, say that my reply is more related to some other thread than to the one your message was on. My email, my right to claim what it's related to. You can change it when you get it, if you don't agree! I could do this with any MUA: reply to message A, but paste the text of a reply to message B into it, and a Re: <message B's subject> into the subject. Voila, I've "rethreaded" your mailbox, a reply to message B has headers that say it's on message A's thread. Sam p.s. Actually, I don't use your patch much, I usually still rethread by hand since I use IMAP to read my mail. Most of the company uses Lotus Notes, which doesn't supply ANY threading information in the RFC822 headers, so the only threading I see is by subject. Argh. Quoting Cedric Duval <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, who wrote: > Only the second case is concerned: if the rethreaded message has no > 'References:' field, then the 'References:' field from the reply will be > formed from the 'Message-Id:' and the 'In-Reply-To:' (which has been > modified). And then, there is a trace in your reply indicating that you > have rethreaded the parent. > > But will this affect the threading of your correspondents? Quite > frankly, I don't think so. My points: > 1) the threading code of their MUA should use 'In-Reply-To' first, to > determine the parent message, not 'References'. If not, I assume > their MUA is broken. > 2) then the only case where it could affect their mailboxes, is if the > message had no 'Message-Id'. Am I wrong in saying that this barely > (never?) happens? Even with silly MUAs we get a Msg-Id. If not, I > think the MTA/MDA would set it. If someone can exhibit some mails > with no Msg-Id, I'm ready to change my mind. > 3) even if it affected others' mailboxes, would this be negative? Who > is using funky rethreadings here? I may be wrong, but I think the > main use of the patch is to fix the threading, not connecting > messages randomly! Then the only effect it would have (if any), > would be a fix of other people mailboxes. I don't think they would > groan for this. > > > I hope I have been clear enough. Sorry for the long explanation. > > Now, if you think I'm wrong, don't hesitate to say so. Otherwise, I'll > get rid definitely of the ugly piece of code that removed our modified > 'In-Reply-To' from the 'References' header of the replies. > > Regards, > -- > Cedric -- Sam Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
