Re: threading

[Flash flash@xxxxxxxx]

I've been sending emails to myself (two different accounts) all morning, using the reply-to function for some 
with the same subject line, replying-to others but changing the subject line, as well as bouncing some. Then 
sniffing the headers. And guess what? I learned something. Say, this is fun.

As Robert says: the headers contain (among others) fields for:

1. message ID (generated by sender)
2. in-reply-to (generated by receiver)
3. references (consisting of a list of message IDs which grows longer with each in-reply-to)

In the case of a first reply-to, the references field is identical to the in-reply-to field (just one entry).

Changing the subject line does not interrupt the list of references, therefore preserving the thread. However, 
answering an email without the reply-to function sends a mail with blank in-reply-to and references fields, 
therefore breaking the thread.

Now, if Carl is right, it should be possible to copy-paste references into a header and insert oneself into a 
thread, regardless what is typed into the 'subject' line.


Sample header (slightly cropped):

≪Delivery-Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 09:06:39 +0200
In-Reply-To: 
References: <6119275306d385229eeb8342d3f1a726@xxxxxxxx>  
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id:  
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: editor at hetchins.org 
Subject: Re: different subject line, reply to
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 09:06:37 +0200
To: Flash 
Envelope-To: flash@xxxxxxxx >>

One more question: I don't see any obvious pattern to the message IDs. They increment not like TCP sequence numbers (which count bytes of user data). 
Any idea how they increment, and whether it would be possible to anticipate the next one in a thread? ('Why would anybody want to DO that?' I hear 
someone ask. Because we are clever boys with a sniffer and nothing better to do on a Sunday morning, that's why.)


PS for Patricia

Here's another gem from Emerson to flatter your fancy:

"Democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors. "