Open
Bug 180299
Opened 22 years ago
Updated 2 years ago
Support 'In-Reply-To: Your message of "Date" <Message-ID>'
Categories
(MailNews Core :: Database, defect)
MailNews Core
Database
Tracking
(Not tracked)
NEW
People
(Reporter: u69748, Unassigned)
References
Details
(Keywords: helpwanted, Whiteboard: [patchlove][has draft patch])
Attachments
(1 file, 3 obsolete files)
3.88 KB,
text/plain
|
Details |
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021111 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.3a) Gecko/20021111 Mozilla dose not recognize following type of In-Reply-To header: In-Reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 08 Nov 2002 18:34:21 JST." <Message-ID> Unix mh mailer generates this, but no References header. So, Mozilla can't construct thread correctly. Is this an old header style ? I receive 200 mails everyday. 1/4 of them are this type of mail. So, I really want to Mozilla supports this type of header. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Recieve a reply mail from mh. 2. See the message in thread view mode. Actual Results: thread is broken. Expected Results: correct thread view.
Summary: Support 'In-Repley-To: Your message of "Date" <Message-ID>' → Support 'In-Reply-To: Your message of "Date" <Message-ID>'
same as bug 173486?
If a message has a following header In-Reply-to: <Message-ID> there is no problem, even if the message has no References header.
test4a,test4b,test4c are replies of test3, which have In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 08 Nov 2002 18:34:21 JST." <test3> In-Reply-To: <test3> Your message of "Fri, 08 Nov 2002 18:34:21 JST." In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 08 Nov 2002 18:34:21 JST." <test3> respectively. Result thread view of 2002111508 trunk is follow: =test1 |-=test2 |-=test3 | |-=test4 | |-=test4b |-=test3a =test4a =test4c Expected result is follow: =test1 |-=test2 |-=test3 | |-=test4 | |-=test4a | |-=test4b | |-=test4c |-=test3a
This style is defined as obs-in-reply-to in RFC 2822. Mozilla MUST recognize message-ID from it. quotation from RFC 2822: ----------------------- 4. Obsolete Syntax ... Though some of these syntactic forms MUST NOT be generated according to the grammar in section 3, they MUST be accepted and parsed by a conformant receiver. ... 4.5.4. Obsolete identification fields The obsolete "In-Reply-To:" and "References:" fields differ from the current syntax in that they allow phrase (words or quoted strings) to appear. The obsolete forms of the left and right sides of msg-id allow interspersed CFWS, making them syntactically identical to local-part and domain respectively. obs-message-id := "Message-ID" *WSP ":" msg-id CRLF obs-in-reply-to := "In-Reply-To" *WSP ":" *(phrase / msg-id) CRLF obs-references := "References" *WSP ":" *(phrase / msg-id) CRLF obs-id-left := local-part obs-id-right := domain For purposes of interpretation, the phrases in the "In-Reply-To:" and "References:" fields are ignored. ... -----------------------
Now I can get thread view of test4a - test4j under test3, except test4f which has a empty In-Reply-To header.
Attachment #106557 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 8•22 years ago
|
||
It seems to me Mozilla should parse this style. Marking NEW.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
I think I have fixed this bug.
Attachment #107863 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #109409 -
Flags: review?(sspitzer)
Attachment #109409 -
Flags: superreview?(bienvenu)
Comment 10•22 years ago
|
||
this is the right thing to do in general - I'm not sure that the patch is the best way to do this - I'll need to look at it more.
Reporter | ||
Comment 11•21 years ago
|
||
Bienvenu, could you explain what is wrong about this patch? If possible I will try to fix the problem. This bug makes my job ability down approximately 5% :-)
Reporter | ||
Comment 12•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 109409 [details] [diff] [review] patch v1.0 Bienvenu, Seth, please comment this patch.
Attachment #109409 -
Flags: superreview?(bienvenu)
Attachment #109409 -
Flags: review?(sspitzer)
Attachment #109409 -
Flags: review?(sspitzer)
Comment 13•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 173486 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 14•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 173486 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 15•21 years ago
|
||
Bug 191726 is related to this, if not a dupe.
Updated•20 years ago
|
Product: Browser → Seamonkey
Updated•19 years ago
|
Assignee: sspitzer → mail
Comment 16•17 years ago
|
||
Hideyuki EMURA: if you still want this, can you provide an updated patch? Ask Bienvenu for review as Seth doesn't do mail stuff much these days.
OS: Windows XP → All
Hardware: PC → All
Updated•16 years ago
|
QA Contact: laurel
Comment 18•16 years ago
|
||
I believe this is a Core mailnews problem, but the patch implies it should be in Database whereas the name implies in MIME...
Comment 19•16 years ago
|
||
is this wanted for Thunderbird?
Keywords: helpwanted
Whiteboard: [patchlove]
Updated•14 years ago
|
Assignee: mail → nobody
Component: MailNews: Message Display → Database
Product: SeaMonkey → MailNews Core
QA Contact: database
Whiteboard: [patchlove] → [patchlove][has draft patch]
Comment 20•14 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 109409 [details] [diff] [review] patch v1.0 Patch has bitrotted. Hideyuki, up for a new patch? :) $ patch -p0 --dry-run < ~/Desktop/p180299.diff (Stripping trailing CRs from patch.) patching file public/nsMsgHdr.h Hunk #1 FAILED at 73. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file public/nsMsgHdr.h.rej (Stripping trailing CRs from patch.) patching file src/nsMsgHdr.cpp Hunk #1 FAILED at 735. patch unexpectedly ends in middle of line Hunk #2 FAILED at 776. 2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/nsMsgHdr.cpp.rej
Attachment #109409 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #109409 -
Flags: review?(sspitzer)
Updated•2 years ago
|
Severity: normal → S3
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•