Bryan:

> Gmail is therefore in violation of the RFC5822. It's quite clear how it should work per the RFC appendix.

Actually, no it's not. RFC5322 reads: "This specification is not intended to dictate ... any of the characteristics of user interface programs that create or read messages".

5822 has not been issued, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5822.

Abraham:

> For more than one year, I have been accused of breaking the eMail etiquette established by a standard, yet identified.

If multiple people have been asking you for over a year to not change subject headings on emails, does this not indicate a bigger issue regarding your mailing list etiquette? The fact that it continues indicates a complete disregard. I cannot think of one technical reason to include a manual timestamp in a subject line (such as your 202401102221.AYC).

> If we have trouble to keep our communication tool's framework solid, we will be spending needless extra resources on technical discussions. This is not productive.

One person changing the subject line of a mailing list thread every few emails for their own benefit, and no one else, is not productive. There is nothing wrong with MUAs currently in use. A user adapts to the MUA, not the other way around.

> Obviously, I am just barely able to read the exchanges on this thread due to so many terminologies that I have never heard of.

If a number of people on a mailing list were using terminologies that I didn't understand, I would:

1. Listen to and understand what they are saying.

2. Contact them off-list and ask for clarification.

3. Heed their advice.

Regards,

Christopher Hawker

On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 00:12, Abraham Y. Chen <aychen@avinta.com> wrote:

Hi, Bryan:

1)    " ... Gmail is therefore in violation of the RFC5822. ... I think it's quite unreasonable to expect others to compensate for an MUA which doesn't implement 25+ year old standards properly. ... ":

    I am so glad that you decided to come out to be a well-informed referee. For more than one year, I have been accused of breaking the eMail etiquette established by a standard, yet never identified. It seriously distracted our attention from the topic of essence. You now have demonstrated that the reverse appears to be the case. What a big surprise!

2)    If we have trouble to keep our communication tool's framework solid, we will be spending needless extra resources on technical discussions. This is not productive.

3)    Obviously, I am just barely able to read the exchanges on this thread due to so many terminologies that I have never heard of. I shall remain silent on this thread from now on, awaiting for you to lead us out of this puzzlement.

Sincerely and Best Regards,

Abe (2024-01-14 08:11 EST)

On 2024-01-14 03:53, Bryan Fields wrote:
On 1/14/24 1:01 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Respectfully, your MUA is not the only MUA. Others work differently.
Bill, I use multiple MUA's, among them Thunderbird, mutt, kmail and even the
zimbra web interface.  All follow and implement RFC5822 as it pertains to
threading.

Note, threading works fine in the list archives too, but only displays two
levels deep.
GMail, for example, follows the message IDs as you say but assumes
that if you change the subject line in your reply (more than adding
"Re:") then you intend to start a new thread from that point in the
discussion. It groups messages accordingly.
Gmail is therefore in violation of the RFC5822.  It's quite clear how it
should work per the RFC appendix.
This is not an unreasonable expectation: if you merely want to
continue the current conversation without going off on a new tangent
then there's no need for a different subject line.
I think it's quite unreasonable to expect others to compensate for an MUA
which doesn't implement 25+ year old standards properly.
Virus-free.www.avast.com