Re: threading

["Robert Holmgren" holmgren@xxxxxxxx]

** Reply to message from Flash  on Sun, 25 Jun 2006 01:19:35
+0200

This is copied from your last message. Your message ID is:
 5af87e71e8f0c5e7b6eeb578734d05ee@xxxxxxxx
Take a look at the whole POP file, as transmitted from CCAT. The entire line:

Message-Id: <5af87e71e8f0c5e7b6eeb578734d05ee@xxxxxxxx>


That's the ID that *I* am keying on to Reply to you, now. But *you* were
keying on a whole sequence of messages. Three lines before the "Message-Id"
line cited above, your Email contains these two lines:

In-Reply-To: <200606242136.k5OLatk2003899@xxxxxxxx>

References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060622152850.0209f590@xxxxxxxx>
<449B1C84.3030709@xxxxxxxx> <200606230951.k5N9pVRF024590@xxxxxxxx>
<449D6355.8030807@xxxxxxxx> <200606242136.k5OLatk2003899@xxxxxxxx>

So you're replying to my previous Email particularly ("In-Reply-To"), in the
context of the whole thread, summarized here as "References". The "References"
are not strictly necessary, but they place you squarely in a position within
the thread. The critical line is "In-Reply-To". There are a number of
synonyms for "In-Reply-To", such as "X-Reference".

The bottom line is that accurate threading can't be developed in the absence of
message IDs, both your own and the one you're Replying to.

-----------------------------
Robert Holmgren
holmgren@xxxxxxxx
-----------------------------