Bug 352289 – archives.gentoo.org incorrectly handles different threads with the same subject

• Status: RESOLVED FIXED
• Product: Gentoo Infrastructure

[Description Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis (RETIRED) 2011-01-20 21:21:37 UTC]

[2] definitely was NOT created as a reply to [1], but archives.gentoo.org incorrectly shows them in the same thread.

[1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_72f19ac0416e740c14b6ec469ba17ed7.xml
[2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_01547712bdf4970efd8da53882eca31e.xml

[Comment 1 Jeremy Olexa (darkside) (RETIRED) 2011-01-20 21:32:14 UTC]

It is a flaw in the software, net-mail/mhonarc. Realistically, this issue won't ever be fixed.

[Comment 2 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis (RETIRED) 2011-01-20 21:35:53 UTC]

You probably could compare Message-Id and In-Reply-To headers.

[Comment 3 Jeremy Olexa (darkside) (RETIRED) 2011-01-20 21:37:59 UTC]

(In reply to comment #2)
> You probably could compare Message-Id and In-Reply-To headers.
> 

right, s/You/Upstream/ :)

[Comment 4 Rafał Mużyło 2011-01-20 21:45:15 UTC]

I'd say there are bigger issues with archives.g.o, i.e. it's inability to display correctly html messages (shown as plain text - yes, whoever sent them shouldn't have used html) or base64 (?) encoded messages (yes, as above).

While both of the cases are to a point invalid, they should be handled either more gracefully, or the messages should simply bounce.

[Comment 5 Jeremy Olexa (darkside) (RETIRED) 2011-01-20 21:49:54 UTC]

You are both correct in the fact that net-mail/mhonarc is pretty questionable choice of software to use because of its flaws. Would it be nice to fix those issues? Yes. Does the infra team have time to do that? Maybe. Is it high on the priority list? Definately not.

[Comment 6 Alex Legler (RETIRED) 2015-02-25 23:45:39 UTC]

(In reply to Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis (RETIRED) from comment #2)
> You probably could compare Message-Id and In-Reply-To headers.

That's a good one.

(In reply to Rafał Mużyło from comment #4)
> I'd say there are bigger issues with archives.g.o, i.e. it's inability to
> display correctly html messages (shown as plain text - yes, whoever sent
> them shouldn't have used html) or base64 (?) encoded messages (yes, as
> above).
> 
> While both of the cases are to a point invalid, they should be handled
> either more gracefully, or the messages should simply bounce.

Good news, HTML mail is now supported.

(In reply to Jeremy Olexa (darkside) from comment #5)
> You are both correct in the fact that net-mail/mhonarc is pretty
> questionable choice of software to use because of its flaws. Would it be
> nice to fix those issues? Yes. Does the infra team have time to do that?
> Maybe. Is it high on the priority list? Definately not.

Is it done? Absolutely.