On 21Jul2022 10:29, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephenjturnbull@gmail.com> wrote:
As long as Discourse provides the In-Reply-To header field, the current threading algorithm would work reasonably well.
Discourse does not do `In-Reply-To:` very well at all. Here's some headers from the _second_ post in the "Core dev sprint this year" thread: Message-ID: <topic/17208/60568.898edf234f56cf6f3a661c1a@discuss.python.org> In-Reply-To: <topic/17208@discuss.python.org> References: <topic/17208@discuss.python.org> The first post has this: Message-ID: <topic/17208.dc83577b18fc3ecc438ed42a@discuss.python.org> References: <topic/17208@discuss.python.org> So at present Discourse's email implementation is buggy. I need to submit a bug report. In essense: The `References` and `In-Reply-To` headers cite a _nonexistent_ message-id which just denotes the thread number in the web forum. By contrast, the message-id itself at least is nice and unique. _However_, someone participating in "email mode" will of course send a message with its own distinct message-id from their source system, and that does not survive the email->discourse->email-out process. So your local copy of the message, if you keep one (I do) it will be a distinct duplicate message in your mail folder. I don't expect that to change. Anyway: - Discourse does provide `In-Reply-To` and `References` - they're bogus - they can be fixed (I'll submit a bug report, someone told me how to do that...) Cheers, Cameron Simpson <cs@cskk.id.au>