<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.E-mailStijl17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=NL link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Last week I studied many Windows-Mail User Agents with the conversation threading feature.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>None of them (SUP, mutt-kz(notmuch), Outlook 2010, Thunderbird with conversation thread plug in, Postbox, Evolution) could cope with the following case:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>In our e-mail-discussions people often choose ‘reply-all’ to construct a new message with the same reciepients.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>They clear the body and the subject, but the hidden References: and In-reply-To: stay and should be cleared as well.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Result is that this new subject drowns in an old conversation-thread-drilldown and this unpredictable behavior makes conversation threading useless.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>This weekend I went analyzing the notmuch-source to find where I could put a fix best.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>I think of a fix that indexes the first dates of (stripped) subject-changes within threads, and with each first (stripped) subject change check the body on quotes of previous messages. If there is no quote to referenced mails then drop the reference and assign a new thread_id_ to the (stripped) subject.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>After two days of studying I think the best place with the least interference with existing code is between ‘notmuch new’ and starting the MUA. Then the threads are in place in XAPIAN, and new thread_id_’s can be inserted.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Am I right?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></body></html>