locked Re: [owlperch] To Duane, Matthew, Shal & Tyger



So, if we get an email, with a message-id in the references list that
we've never seen before, we think we've gotten an out of order reply,
and that we should expect to see the original message at some point.
Wouldn't this be an ordinary result with a cross-posted reply? Cross-posting ought to be more commonly forwarded messages than replies, but _users do the darndest things_ (to paraphrase Art Linkletter). I've often bcc'd a group reply to a friend, but probably not too often to another group or list.

We put a 'placeholder' message in the database that corresponds to this
message we haven't seen before. It's empty, and it doesn't show up in
archives, but it does have a message number. When we see the original
message, we replace the placeholder with the original, and we're good.
Why? Just to prevent the rare case of a message number being out of order in the thread? Or are the threads actually sorted by message number and its the message that would be presented out of order?

What happened in this case is that Shal replied to an email in a
different group. Therefore, his message had in the references a
message-id that the group owlperch had never seen.
Other way around. The reply was to a message in owlperch. But the reply got cross-posted somehow into beta. It is beta which would never have seen the ID in that reply's References (and In-Reply-To).

The weird thing is that Brenda claims that her reply to me was made through owlperch, yet posted to beta. There's absolutely no mention of beta, nor ID of any beta messages, in the header fields of my cross-posted reply. That's too weird, I have to assume that Brenda was mistaken, and she actually replied in the Beta group, but thought it was owlperch because the subject tag said [owlperch].

-- Shal

Join main@beta.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.