On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 09:14:17PM +0200, Michael Tatge wrote:
> I didn't do that, it was the original poster, that already did it.
> If he for God's sake can't live with the wrong threading, editing the
> header seems to be the easiest workaround. If you find this cool, buy a
> coat. You'll be w
clemensF muttered:
> > Michael Tatge:
>
> > So, to get the threading in the way to want it just set the Date:
> > header of that message to a reasonable value and you'll be fine.
>
> that's cool! whenever you suspect something's fishy, you just wade thru
> your email to check the sequence of da
> Michael Tatge:
> So, to get the threading in the way to want it just set the Date:
> header of that message to a reasonable value and you'll be fine.
that's cool! whenever you suspect something's fishy, you just wade thru
your email to check the sequence of dates? or did you already write th
Gary Johnson muttered:
> All the times in the Received: headers and the From header are
> consistent, but the original poster's clock seems to be fast by an hour.
>
> Gary
>
> --
> Gary Johnson | Agilent Technologies
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | RF Communications Product Gener
On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 08:37:25AM +0200, Byrial Jensen wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 03:18:07 +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> > When Mutt does threading, it pays attention to the message times.
>
> Right, and that is indeed the problem.
>
> > > 1003:
> > > Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 12:5
On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 03:18:07 +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote:
> > 1001:
> > Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 07:33:38 EDT
> > Subject: Re: Mapping problem
>
> I think the root of the problem is here. The date isn't properly
> formatted, instead of having the timezone in the +/- formatting
> Mikko Hänninen:
> PATH=C:\WINDOWS;C:\WINDOWS\RUN;C:\WINDOWS\CRASH
you got your path all wrong. with windows it =must= look like this:
PATH=C:\WINDOWS;C:\WINDOWS\CRASH;C:\WINDOWS\RUN
--
clemens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gary Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 23 May 2000:
> I'm having a problem understanding why some messages are threaded as
> they are. It seems incorrect to me, but it's probably some subtlety I
> don't understand.
Right... Okay, I *think* I understand what is going on, let's see if I
c
