From 731bde4f68014caeca82d72e43c04a7b755148f8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Luke T. Shumaker" Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 15:58:18 -0400 Subject: mv cmd/generate/mailstuff/ lib/mailstuff/ # and supporting --- lib/mailstuff/jwz.md | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+) create mode 100644 lib/mailstuff/jwz.md (limited to 'lib/mailstuff/jwz.md') diff --git a/lib/mailstuff/jwz.md b/lib/mailstuff/jwz.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..91e03f5 --- /dev/null +++ b/lib/mailstuff/jwz.md @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +To: Jamie Zawinski +Subject: message threading + +Hi, + +I'm implementing message threading, and have been referencing both +your document and RFC 5256. +I'm not sure whether you're interested in updating a document that's +more than 25 years old, but if you are: I hope you find the following +feedback valuable. + +You write that the algorithm in RFC 5256 is merely a "restating" of +your algorithm, but I noticed 3 (minor) differences: + +1. In your step 1.C, the RFC says to check whether this would create a + loop, and if it would to skip creating the link; your version only + says to perform this check in step 1.B. + +2. The RFC says to sort the messages by date between your steps 4 and + 5; that is: when grouping by subject, containers in the root set + should be processed in date-order (you do not specify an order), + and that if container in the root set is empty then the subject + should be taken from the earliest-date child (you say to use an + arbitrary child). + +3. The RFC precisely states how to trim a subject down to a "base + subject," rather than simply saying "Strip ``Re:'', ``RE:'', + ``RE[5]:'', ``Re: Re[4]: Re:'' and so on." + +Additionally, there are two minor points on which I found their +version to be clearer: + +1. The RFC specifies how to handle messages without a Message-Id or + with a duplicate Message-Id (on page 9), as well as how to + normalize a Message-Id (by referring to RFC 2822). This is perhaps + out-of-scope of your algorithm document, but I feel that it would + be worth mentioning in your background or definitions section. + +2. In your step 1.B, I did not understand what "If they are already + linked, don't change the existing links" meant until I read the + RFC, which words it as "If a message already has a parent, don't + change the existing link." It was unclear to me what "they" was + referring to in your version. + +-- +Happy hacking, +~ Luke T. Shumaker -- cgit v1.2.3-54-g00ecf