February 17, 2017
On 2017-02-17 08:56, ketmar wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>
>> Something is going on with your newsreader client. It's replies break
>> the thread.
>
> i honestly don't know what is wrong there. i creating "In-Reply-To:"
> field, and DFeed is able to correctly link my posts (see web interface),
> and my own reader correctly links 'em too. i.e. i tested it with web and
> with my reader, and it was working ok...
>
> the only thing i can blame is absence of "References:" header. i was
> sure that it is completely unnecessary, but i added "References:"
> generation too, just in case.

Thunderbird fails to thread your message properly.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
February 17, 2017
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2017-02-17 08:56, ketmar wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>> 
>>> Something is going on with your newsreader client. It's replies break
>>> the thread.
>> i honestly don't know what is wrong there. i creating "In-Reply-To:"
>> field, and DFeed is able to correctly link my posts (see web interface),
>> and my own reader correctly links 'em too. i.e. i tested it with web and
>> with my reader, and it was working ok...
>> the only thing i can blame is absence of "References:" header. i was
>> sure that it is completely unnecessary, but i added "References:"
>> generation too, just in case.
> Thunderbird fails to thread your message properly.

that one didn't had "References:" set -- i forgot to append 'em to headers. this one should have 'em.
February 17, 2017
On 02/17/2017 09:52 AM, ketmar wrote:

> that one didn't had "References:" set -- i forgot to append 'em to
> headers. this one should have 'em.

This one worked.

Ali

February 17, 2017
Ali Çehreli wrote:
> On 02/17/2017 09:52 AM, ketmar wrote:
> 
>> that one didn't had "References:" set -- i forgot to append 'em to
>> headers. this one should have 'em.
> This one worked.
> Ali

thank you. so mail readers aren't that smart after all. ;-)
February 17, 2017
On 2/17/2017 10:46 AM, ketmar wrote:
> Ali Çehreli wrote:
>> On 02/17/2017 09:52 AM, ketmar wrote:
>>
>>> that one didn't had "References:" set -- i forgot to append 'em to
>>> headers. this one should have 'em.
>> This one worked.
>> Ali
>
> thank you. so mail readers aren't that smart after all. ;-)

My news archiver program:

  https://github.com/DigitalMars/ngArchiver

relies on "References:", and if that is absent, looks for a "Re:" as the start of the "Subject:" text.
February 17, 2017
Walter Bright wrote:
> My news archiver program:
> https://github.com/DigitalMars/ngArchiver
> relies on "References:", and if that is absent, looks for a "Re:" as the start of the "Subject:" text.

i see. anyway, i added "References:" generation, so it should work now. feel free to write here or contact me via e-mail if it is still broken, so we can work it out then.
February 18, 2017
On Wednesday, 15 February 2017 at 21:07:06 UTC, Arun Chandrasekaran wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 February 2017 at 19:47:28 UTC, Cym13 wrote:
>> There's little point in having more features if what's already there is
>> half broken and not well-defined.
>
> +1

Indeed.
February 17, 2017
On 2/17/2017 2:47 PM, ketmar wrote:
> i see. anyway, i added "References:" generation, so it should work now. feel
> free to write here or contact me via e-mail if it is still broken, so we can
> work it out then.

It seems to be working fine now. Thanks!
February 18, 2017
On Friday, 17 February 2017 at 18:46:21 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> Ali Çehreli wrote:
>> On 02/17/2017 09:52 AM, ketmar wrote:
>> 
>>> that one didn't had "References:" set -- i forgot to append 'em to
>>> headers. this one should have 'em.
>> This one worked.
>> Ali
>
> thank you. so mail readers aren't that smart after all. ;-)

Even in the presence of "In-Reply-To", "References" is still useful when different parties see different Message-IDs (e.g. due to mailing-list gateways). That way, replies (except top-level replies) will still at least be nested in the right thread instead of appearing as a new thread.

February 18, 2017
Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> Even in the presence of "In-Reply-To", "References" is still useful when different parties see different Message-IDs (e.g. due to mailing-list gateways). That way, replies (except top-level replies) will still at least be nested in the right thread instead of appearing as a new thread.

ah, really, i forgot that msgid can be changed by some intermediary. tnx.

i think that we should have an article on wiki for client writers. no, really, some knowledge is here but never written, so people like me have to figure it out each time. not that there are so many client writers, of course, but... oh, ok, i guess that i'll write a short summary on this later. ;-)