On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:04 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > Thomas Munro wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 10:46 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> > Um. Have you actually seen the "mail archive app" cut long threads off in >> > other cases? Because it's certainly not supposed to do that... >> >> Hi Magnus, >> >> I mean the "flat" thread view: >> >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAFjFpRfQ8GrQvzp3jA2wnLqrHmaXna-urjm_UY9BqXj=EaDTSA@mail.gmail.com >> >> The final message on that page is not the final message that appears >> in my mail client for the thread. I guessed that might have been cut >> off due to some hard-coded limit, but perhaps there is some other >> reason (different heuristics for thread following?) > > You're thinking of message > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFjFpRfa6_n10cn3vXjN9hdTqneH6A1rfnLXy0PnCP63T2putw@mail.gmail.com > but that is not the same thread -- it doesn't have the References or > In-Reply-To headers (see "raw"; user/pwd is archives/antispam). Don't > know why though -- maybe Gmail trimmed References because it no longer > fit in the DKIM signature? Yours had a long one: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/raw/CAEepm%3D0VCrC-WfzZkq3YSvJXf225rDnp1ypjv%2BrjKO5d0%3DXqFg%40mail.gmail.com Huh. Interesting. It seems that Gmail uses a fuzzier heuristics, not just "In-Reply-To", explaining why I considered that to be the same thread but our archive didn't: http://www.sensefulsolutions.com/2010/08/how-does-email-threading-work-in-gmail.html I wonder why it dropped the In-Reply-To header when Ashutosh replied... -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
pgsql-hackers by date:
Соглашаюсь с условиями обработки персональных данных
