331207 - Threading by Thread-Topic and Thread-Index

Status: NEW

(Thunderbird :: Mail Window Front End, enhancement)

Description

[Martin Kopta]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; cs-CZ; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050919 Firefox/1.0.7
Build Identifier: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)

I receive messages from some mail lists, that do not contain headers In-Reply-To and References, but contain Thread-Topic and Thread-Index. Sorting messages by thread does not function properly with that messages. If threre is no message with Thread-Topic in the existing thread, first message with Thread-Topic header establishes a new thread.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Subscribe to a mail list (i.e. http://seo.nawebu.cz/)
2. Start a new thread
3. Reply with no In-Reply-To and References, but use Thread-Topic and Thread-Index heades.
4. Select Thread view in Thunderbird.


Actual Results:  
I see two threads.

Expected Results:  
Thunderbird should view one thread only

Comment 1

[Mike Cowperthwaite]

Can you provide a URL for a specification of these headers?  They are not standard.

Comment 2

[Martin Kopta]

Thread-Topic:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/cdosys/html/9276fc7a-45fe-410a-b50f-9e09890155e7.asp?frame=true

Thread-Index:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/cdosys/html/096fae47-8f3a-4f9c-aba2-3cb2c9412806.asp?frame=true

Headers from a real message:
-------- Original Message --------
X-UIDL: 1142950248.1131.mail-1.nethost.cz
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-Path: <seo-return-15163-***********************@nawebu.cz>
Delivered-To: ***********************
Received: (qmail 1065 invoked by uid 210); 21 Mar 2006 15:10:47 +0100
Received: from 81.31.5.5 by mail-1.nethost.cz (envelope-from <seo-return-15163-**********************@nawebu.cz>, uid 201) with qmail-scanner-1.25st  (clamdscan: 0.88/1345. perlscan: 1.25st.   Clear:RC:0(81.31.5.5):.  Processed in 0.474416 secs); 21 Mar 2006 14:10:47 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO centaurus.4web.cz) (81.31.5.5)  by mail-1.nethost.cz with SMTP; 21 Mar 2006 15:10:46 +0100
Received: (qmail 16254 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2006 14:09:20 -0000
Mailing-List: contact [e-mail]; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: mailing list [e-mail]
Received: (qmail 16102 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2006 14:09:13 -0000
x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Katalogy zboží VS fulltext
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:09:12 +0100
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Katalogy zboží VS fulltext
Thread-Index: AcZMEnS39ejDgfozTqWT4Q03DxYSHwA3m3lw
From: Kryl Milan <****************************>
To: <[e-mail]>
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0612-0, 20.03.2006), Inbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

Comment 3

[Thomas Nygreen]

I posted a bug (Bug 330767) about this which was duped to Bug 29179 (I strongly discourage doing that to this bug too). You will find my bug description and a screenshot there.

Comment 4

[Jason McLaren]

I see this when using Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 on linux, so I don't think it's OS specific.

Those Thread-Topic and Thread-Index headers are used by Outlook, instead of References and In-Reply-To.

Comment 5

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

Confirming RFE.

Comment 6

[Magnus Melin [:mkmelin]]

*** Bug 347001 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 7

[Matěj Cepl]

Discussion why this is probably unfixable are at the Evolution bugzilla https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=250348

Comment 8

[[:Aureliano Buendía]]

I think that the implementation of non-standard "Thread-Index" header could be a step forward to outlook parity.


http://library.gnome.org/devel/evolution-exchange/stable/ximian-connector-mail-threading.html

Comment 11

[Stefan Neufeind]

At least being able to use them (make use of them when finding threads) would imho be great.

If we'll also write that parameter ourselves additionally could be discussed. I think that would give the wrong signal and we should stick to the standard-headers for sending, for now.

Comment 12

[ildar.mulyukov]

Is it (theoretically) possible to implement with an addon (extension)?