Tim: >> You can test for that yourself with any collection of messages belonging >> to a thread, remove the messages linked directly together by the >> in-reply-to headers. (Copy a thread to a test folder, remove the every >> second generation of messages.) Patrick O'Callaghan: > That's an ingenious idea. I tried it with Evolution and indeed it > works, so Evo at least *does* appear to take note of the References > header. All the same, when I delete the common parent of two messages > (which were previously at the same hierarchical level) then one > appears as the parent of the other, even when I turn off the "fall > back on Subject threading" option, so the conclusion is not completely > iron-clad, i.e. Evo seems to be doing something else (I checked > carefully that neither message had the Message-ID of the other > anywhere in its headers.) Do you have another client installed to compare behaviours? I think the fall back might be additionally sort by date, but I'd expect them to appear as children to the initial post. Though the order of messages listed in the references header might be used. -- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.9-73.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
