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)
(deleted),
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•22 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•22 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•22 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 173486 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 14•22 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•20 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•17 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•15 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
•