TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Message threading (1997-2002)

161 点作者 tdonia超过 11 年前

10 条评论

songgao超过 11 年前
I was interning in Rackspace this summer. For a while we were working on an email notification sender and we wanted email clients to group messages related the same event into a single conversation. However, different &quot;event&quot; might have same message subject, and we wanted to suggest how messages should be grouped. So we looked into &quot;In-Reply-To&quot; (RFC-822) and &quot;References&quot;(RFC-2822) fields. We ended up implementing RFC-2822 since it obsoletes RFC-822 and we figured if we want our message grouping work on most email clients, the safest way was to use the up-to-date standard (2822).<p>Interesting fact is that, among three clients we tested, only mutt faithfully implemented the standard. It honestly grouped all messages referenced to the same ID into the same parent, despite subject or sending time. However, neither Gmail or Outlook respects the &quot;References&quot; field.<p>In Gmail, it seems subject of the message plus [one of &lt;time of message sent&gt; and &lt;References&gt;] are used for grouping. But it certainly doesn&#x27;t exclusively rely on &quot;References&quot; since we got messages referenced to same parent message grouped into different conversations.<p>In Outlook, &quot;References&quot; field is ignored completely. It only relies on subject of messages. We got messages for different &quot;event&quot; from more than 10 days from each other, grouped into same conversation.
评论 #6350581 未加载
评论 #6351285 未加载
greenyoda超过 11 年前
1. I&#x27;m impressed by the amount of analysis and the clarity of thought that went into designing this algorithm. It&#x27;s not just something you can sit down at the keyboard and pound out.<p>2. This is a great example of the perils of re-writing code that you don&#x27;t completely understand:<p><i>4.0 eliminated the &quot;dummy thread parent&#x27;&#x27; step, which is an absolute necessity to get threading right in the case where you don&#x27;t have every message (e.g., because one has expired, or was never sent to you at all.) The best explanation I was able to get from them for why they did this was, &quot;it looked ugly and I didn&#x27;t understand why it was there.&#x27;&#x27;</i>
评论 #6350742 未加载
gregschlom超过 11 年前
I implemented jwz&#x27;s algorithm for my now defunct email client (<a href="http://betterinbox.com" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;betterinbox.com</a>)<p>It was fun and worked extremely well, though it did give different results than gmail on some instances.
评论 #6352139 未加载
mfincham超过 11 年前
For what it&#x27;s worth, Balsa (<a href="http://pawsa.fedorapeople.org/balsa/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;pawsa.fedorapeople.org&#x2F;balsa&#x2F;</a>) implements this as a threading option.<p>Edit: pointed to correct URL
hendry超过 11 年前
You could use Dovecot&#x27;s &quot;thread references&quot; to produce an appropriate data structure from a variety of mail stores.<p>See &quot;Write a decent mailing list Web archive system&quot; on <a href="http://suckless.org/project_ideas" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;suckless.org&#x2F;project_ideas</a> for an example.
pestaa超过 11 年前
Very insightful article. I do wonder though if &quot;say no to databases&quot; still stands as of now. I agree that performance-wise files are hard to beat for most problems, but we&#x27;re storing data in databases because they provide guarantees a filesystem doesn&#x27;t, eases deployment and configuration, etc.
评论 #6351299 未加载
评论 #6351045 未加载
评论 #6351030 未加载
评论 #6351213 未加载
jbverschoor超过 11 年前
I&#x27;m always frikking annoyed by gmail and mail.app and airmail app with the fact that they try to guess a thread..<p>Messages with the same subjects are not threads!
longlivedeath超过 11 年前
I read the title as an epitaph.
taeric超过 11 年前
Can we look forward to this coming to twitter soon? :)
评论 #6350860 未加载
frozenport超过 11 年前
It tickles my fancy thinking about an era when C++ was compared to C.