> > Gmail is therefore in violation of the RFC5822. It's quite clear how it > should work per the RFC appendix. >
Well, no. Asterisks added for emphasis. This specification is intended as a definition of what message > content format is to be passed between systems. Though some message > systems locally store messages in this format (which eliminates the > need for translation between formats) and others use formats that > differ from the one specified in this specification, local storage is > outside of the scope of this specification. > > Note: This specification is not intended to dictate the internal > formats used by sites, the specific message system features that > they are expected to support, *** or any of the characteristics of > user interface programs that create or read messages. *** In > addition, this document does not specify an encoding of the > characters for either transport or storage; that is, it does not > specify the number of bits used or how those bits are specifically > transferred over the wire or stored on disk. > > 5822 defines the structure and syntax of the data. Not how mail agents should work with it. On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 3:55 AM Bryan Fields <br...@bryanfields.net> wrote: > On 1/14/24 1:01 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > Respectfully, your MUA is not the only MUA. Others work differently. > > Bill, I use multiple MUA's, among them Thunderbird, mutt, kmail and even > the > zimbra web interface. All follow and implement RFC5822 as it pertains to > threading. > > Note, threading works fine in the list archives too, but only displays two > levels deep. > > > GMail, for example, follows the message IDs as you say but assumes > > that if you change the subject line in your reply (more than adding > > "Re:") then you intend to start a new thread from that point in the > > discussion. It groups messages accordingly. > > Gmail is therefore in violation of the RFC5822. It's quite clear how it > should work per the RFC appendix. > > > This is not an unreasonable expectation: if you merely want to > > continue the current conversation without going off on a new tangent > > then there's no need for a different subject line. > > I think it's quite unreasonable to expect others to compensate for an MUA > which doesn't implement 25+ year old standards properly. > -- > Bryan Fields > > 727-409-1194 - Voice > http://bryanfields.net >
