[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is subject-based threading actually done in conjunction with explicit threading?
On September 25, 1998 at 15:37, "Christian de la Salle" wrote:
> Fortunately, MHonArc provides for subject-based threading. I am however
> experiencing 2 problems with it :
> 1- if threading is detected most of the time, leading to proper indention in
> the Thread List, it sometimes fails (apparently, as soon as there is an other
> message in between the reference and its undetected follow-up).
I am unclear on what you are stating. Provide a snippet of an example
in index (formatted text is just fine).
> 2- irrespective of what Version 2.2.0 claims, I'm unable to get subject-based
> threading actually work as if it were explicit threading : $NUMFOLUP$ stucks
> at 0 and, in the messages, follow-up links are not generated after the messag
> body eventhough $FOLREFS$ is on.
> Did I miss something. Any advice or solution?
$NUMFOLUP$ is based on *explicit* follow-ups. From the docs:
$NUMFOLUP$ Number of explicit follow-ups to the message.
Subject-based detectection is *implied* threading.
There is no way (or very difficult) to get an accurate value based on
subject-based threading. To be accurate, it would require heuristics
that examine message bodies.
FOLREFS (not $FOLREFS$ -- no such variable) is also based on explicit
references and follow-ups.
Earl Hood | University of California: Irvine
firstname.lastname@example.org | Electronic Loiterer
http://www.oac.uci.edu/indiv/ehood/ | Dabbler of SGML/WWW/Perl/MIME