693573 - thread sorted in the wrong order

Status: RESOLVED INCOMPLETE

(Thunderbird :: Folder and Message Lists, defect)

Description

[a_geek]

Sometimes, mail sorting, based on the "In-Reply-To" header, breaks in the threaded view, resulting in displays like the following:

+ msg1
 + msg2
  + msg3
  + msg4
  + msg5

or even

+ msg1
 + msg2
  + msg3
  + msg4
 ... many more messages
+ msg5

When, in reality, it should have been:

+ msg1
 + msg2
  + msg3
   + msg4
    + msg5

I'm running TB 7.0.1.

Comment 1

[Hashem Masoud]

(In reply to a_geek from comment #0)
What is the sort order in View -> Sort by ?

Comment 2

[a_geek]

Date, Ascending, Threaded

for the case where it went wrong. At least, it goes wrong in a consistent manner (so far). I specifically checked one message that is being sorted incorrectly (there are more), and it has an "In-Reply-To" header mentioning the message I replied to, but wasn't sorted below that, as


msg1 (start of thread)
... (some 50 messages)
  + msg2 (message I replied to)
    + msg3 (my reply)

but instead as

msg1
...
  + msg2
+ msg3

Comment 3

[WADA:World Anti-bad-Duping Agency]

(In reply to a_geek from comment #2)
> for the case where it went wrong. At least, it goes wrong in a consistent manner (so far).
> I specifically checked one message that is being sorted 
> incorrectly (there are more),
> and it has an "In-Reply-To" header mentioning the message I replied to, but wasn't sorted below that, (snip)

As you say "consistent manner" and refer to In-Reply-To:, it sounds same problem as or similar problem to bug 676916 which is fixed lately.
Can you check Message-Id: header of all relevant mails?

Questions to rule out other known issues relivant to threaded view.
Is phenomenon of "newly arrived mail is placed at bottom of thread pane instead of in-a-thread" involved in your problem? (I believe NO)
Virtual folder(saved search, or folder pane view other than "All Folders")?
If so, bug 595484, bug 671936 can happen.
Very deep nesting?
If yes, Tb doesn't look torelant with nesting deeper than 256. It may happen in news group, although it's very rare in mail box.

Comment 4

[a_geek]

I have looked at the header of one such email, and it has a single-line Message-Id, and a multi-line References-Header, properly folded, as far as I can tell. It also has a single-line but long In-Reply-To header. The message id referenced is 70 characters long and not properly terminated (this fact escaped me at first). It looks like "<probably-unique-characterstring@hostname" (sans the quotes), but I can not determine, whether TB stripped the trailing ">", or whether it was missing right from the start. This is in an IMAP folder (no virtual/saved search/..., just the plain physical folder in "All Folders" mode). For another such message, the Message-Id already doesn't have the ">". That message comes from the same correspondent, using the same mail server software (OpenXchange - maybe you can reproduce the problem).

Comment 5

[WADA:World Anti-bad-Duping Agency]

(In reply to a_geek from comment #4)
> It also has a single-line but long In-Reply-To header.
> The message id referenced is 70 characters long and not properly terminated (this fact escaped me at first).
> It looks like "<probably-unique-characterstring@hostname" (sans the quotes),
>(snip)
> For another such message, the Message-Id already doesn't have the ">".

Can you attach mail to this bug?
(Save as .eml file. Remove/replace personal information, and remove mail body data as it's irrelevant to problem. Don't paste in bug's comment if long, please.)

Comment 6

[Ludovic Hirlimann [:Usul]]

A_geek ?

Comment 7

[a_geek]

Attachment: test email that TB seems to be unable to sort a reply directly to

I made an attempt to properly anonymize the mail header of one such message that TB seems to be unable to file a reply under, causing the thread to break. I made an effort to not alter the format of the header, though, except that I didn't take care to preserve the length of IP numbers.

Comment 8

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

still reproduces?

Comment 9

[Arthur K. (he/him)]

I can't even find an "In Reply To" sorting option.

Comment 10

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

Without the reporter I don't see this as actionable.