At 06:48 PM 1/8/97 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 5:34 PM -0800 1/8/97, Stan Ryckman wrote:
>>You may want to get a mail reader which can sort by date received, if this
>>bothers you. elm, for one, is perfectly capable of this.
> I think you missed the point I was making. I already HAVE such a
>ua and errors in the DATE fields of messages cause replies to PRECEDE the
>original note sorting sequence.
No, because sorting by date received doesn't use any DATE fields in
messages, only the date added by your MDA when storing the mail.
It's the date you got it, added by your machine.
If still out of order, then either they're getting out of order between the
list and you, or (probably more likely) before arriving at the list.
In the latter case, having the list re-timestamp mail won't help.
(Sorting by date received will take care of misdated mail that didn't
"pass" other mail.)
I often see replies before the original on certain lists; those lists
are ones where people tend to mail responses both to the poster and to
the list (as I'm doing here) and the original poster replies quickly,
and the second reply arrives at the list before the first one due
to different routing delays. In this case, only using the original
dates (if correct) would work.
The only real way around all these things is having mailers add and
preserve References: and In-Reply-To: headerfields, and having mailing
lists pass them through. Then a threaded mail reader (such as mutt)
can restore the order regardless of any date-oriented fields.
> Having lists use resent-* fields is quite reasonable but has not
>become standard practise. My suggestion was based on a desire to work
>within the current deployed framework.
It may not be standard, but it's standardized (though optional).
Rewriting "Date:" fields is not within the currently deployed framework
either (of any of the current MLM software that I know of).
Stan Ryckman (firstname.lastname@example.org)