Vince Littler <suse@archipelago.eclipse.co.uk> [2003-04-23 14:55]:
Well, if it ain't written down, it ain't a standard, regardless of the length of 'use', its age or even its shoe size. And what Christopher Mahmood says about ezmlm-idx indicates that there are multiple implementations trying to achieve the same end.
It _is_ documented. See RFC822, RFC1036, RFC2076, and the "Son of RFC1036." How various clients locally handle threads (display, search, etc) has nothing to do with not breaking threading in replies. There's no reason to specify local handling -- because it's local -- but every reason to specify the header format of replies because they affect everyone.
Similarly with threading. If there was a _published_ standard [with broad agreement and enough wrinkles ironed out to be broadly beneficial], I would want a client to support that standard. I would want SuSE to provide clients which complied [presuming on the broadness of SuSE's shoulders!]
There is (see above), and SuSE does (kmail, mutt, etc).
However, the problem remains that to most people 'thread' and 'subject' are the same thing...
That's why we're having the discussion: to make it clear what threading is and why it's important. :) The problem is educating users, not lack of documentation.
I think this has taken us somewhere constructive.
If it makes one person switch to a thread-compliant MUA, then yes, it has. :) -rex -- The history of Liberty is a history of the limitation of government power. -- Woodrow Wilson