conversation not recognized

[Kudbe]

I received several messages with identical subject line and From address. They are listed individually in Inbox. FastMail does not recognize the conversation. Could a missing References header in these messages be the reason? In Mail.app on OS X, threading is based on this header, and if missing, on the subject, afaik.

Besides, is there a way to search these forums with something like an AND operator, e.g. "header AND references"?

[janusz]

Originally Posted by Kudbe

is there a way to search these forums with something like an AND operator, e.g. "header AND references"?

Yes, in Google, Bing &c...

[Kudbe]

Hello again, janusz.

I see, I was right to create a new thread; found only this:

Originally Posted by brong

... the reason for the count changing is that all messages which are related (by In-Reply-To/References) count as a single conversation rather the individual messages.

So ... relatedness is not inferred from the subject if other, rather technical cues are missing?

[robn]

Originally Posted by Kudbe

So ... relatedness is not inferred from the subject if other, rather technical cues are missing?

I don't know the exact logic, and I'm having trouble read the code to figure out (its deep in the Cyrus internals, and there's nobody in the office right now to explain it to me). But yes, subject handling has to be a bit magical when it comes to conversation construction, for two main reasons:

- Two matching subjects aren't necessarily part of the same conversation. Often automatic mailouts (notifications, bills) will have the same subject, even weeks apart. These are probably unrelated.

- Messages with matching References/In-Reply-To headers but different subjects often means that someone has replied to an old message and changed the subject, starting a new conversation. You don't want these to be grouped as they're unrelated.

Fortunately most sending clients do set References/In-Reply-To headers correctly, and most users do start a new message for a new topic rather than replying to an old one, so most of the time it comes out right. We do go over this in the office every couple of months, and so far what we have seems to be the most balanced approach.

I'll try to get the exact logic figured out sometime and post it. If Bron hasn't already posted it on this forum or somewhere else already, that is

[Kudbe]

Originally Posted by robn

Messages with matching References/In-Reply-To headers but different subjects often means that someone has replied to an old message and changed the subject, starting a new conversation. You don't want these to be grouped as they're unrelated.

I understand that this logic is the best approach for incoming mail. But whenever someone using the ajax webmail client edits the subject and replies, it surely always means that this FastMail user sees his reply connected to the message he is replying to or even wants FastMail to group them despite the edit to the subject. Hence, they should be grouped.

Maybe there should be two sets of logic, one (the existing one) for incoming mail and a separate one for mail sent?

[BritTim]

Originally Posted by Kudbe

I understand that this logic is the best approach for incoming mail. But whenever someone using the ajax webmail client edits the subject and replies, it surely always means that this FastMail user sees his reply connected to the message he is replying to or even wants FastMail to group them despite the edit to the subject. Hence, they should be grouped.

Maybe there should be two sets of logic, one (the existing one) for incoming mail and a separate one for mail sent?

I understand your point. However, when in a hurry, I sometimes just pick up an old email and hit reply even though sending on an unrelated subject. Maybe, this is a lazy and misguided approach, but I bet I am not alone.

It is important to note that the logic on grouping messages into conversations is not based on any "conversation links" in the database. It is a dynamic process at the time messages are retrieved to be displayed. This means that whether you are using the ajax or classic interface, when replying, is irrelevant to deciding which messages are grouped in a conversation later.

[hadaso]

Originally Posted by BritTim

I understand your point. However, when in a hurry, I sometimes just pick up an old email and hit reply even though sending on an unrelated subject. Maybe, this is a lazy and misguided approach, but I bet I am not alone....

That's the main reason why I prefer not to view email as "conversations".

I corresponded with some people that actually used email threading as a folder system: they looked back for an email in their mailbox with an appropriate subject, and replied to it (or forwarded it) to start a new conversation on the same general subject. I really hated this (it meant that with each little question sent Gmail also sent me all the past correspondence of that person on that particular general subject, that could be hundreds of messages).

[BritTim]

Originally Posted by hadaso

That's the main reason why I prefer not to view email as "conversations".

I corresponded with some people that actually used email threading as a folder system: they looked back for an email in their mailbox with an appropriate subject, and replied to it (or forwarded it) to start a new conversation on the same general subject. I really hated this (it meant that with each little question sent Gmail also sent me all the past correspondence of that person on that particular general subject, that could be hundreds of messages).

Thank you for your reply. I must admit that, after 10 years, I have lost the train of thought I had at the time I wrote the post you replied to.

Today, I am not as busy as I was a decade ago, and will take the time to construct an appropriate subject line when using email. I do still receive messages all the time where someone lazily hit reply on something unrelated. It rarely worries me. I treat it the same way as I do regular conversations where people keep changing the subject while we are talking.