Subj : Re: Newsgroup replies to
To   : Tharius
From : Digital Man
Date : Wed Aug 31 2005 02:25 pm

  Re: Re: Newsgroup replies to
  By: Tharius to Digital Man on Wed Aug 31 2005 01:58 pm

 > 
 > "Digital Man" <digital.man@VERT> wrote in message
 > news:431562A2.9099.dove-hlp@vert.synchro.net...
 > 
 > > > > > but they had a point) that my reader was posting replies to ALL
 > > > > > instead
 > 
 > > > > > locals and in dovenet just fine, with the TO field being the person
 > > > > > I'm
 > > > > > responding to, however, my fidonet echomail is responding to ALL
 > 
 > > we're talkinga bout RFC822 message-ID's here, not FTN message-IDs.
 > 
 > I was just trying to translate it down :)  Part of the nntp message header
 > format.  They're linking back and forth between

Not exactly. The RFC822MessageIds are created when the messages are imported
from FTN to your BBS's message bases (in SMB format). So there's no FTN "kludge
line" that contains the RFC822MessageId.

 > > > > "O, H" command from the reading message prompt. And your reply message
 > > > > in OE should have a "in-reply-to" header field which matches the
 > > > > original
 > > > > messages "rfc822msgid" field.
 > 
 > I don' t see anything that says in-reply-to but found the msgid and replyid.

The "in-reply-to" header field is part of teh NNTP article format. If you look
at the details of message in Outlook Express (where it shows the NNTP headers),
you should see it there. This "in-reply-to" NNTP header field gets imported
into SMB has an "RFC822ReplyId" SMB header field.

 > > > If I delete the news: part would that screw up the lookup?
 > > No. The header fields are in the "invisible" part of the message. Editing
 > > the
 > > message body text will have no effect on this lookup.
 > 
 > I didn't think that would affect it but it seemed a relevant thing to ask.
 > 
 > Original post : Sync 3.12a
 > RFC822MsgID      <430F2B83.1.fidobbsdoord@aceshigh.dyn.dhs.org>

It's still not clear to me how this message was posted (via Telnet, FTN, NNTP,
QWK, or what?).

 > PID says Synchronet 3.12a, this was a remote reply to my message.

The PID doesn't have any relevance to this issue.

 > We have
 > an ID match, and ok to/from
 > > > RFC822ReplyID    <430F2B83.1.fidobbsdoord@aceshigh.dyn.dhs.org>
 > No RFC MSG ID on the header.

Header of what message? How was this message posted? If it was posted via NNTP,
then the need to check the original article header in OE and make sure it has a
"message-id" header field.

 > My reply to the above message, via OE NNTP (displays as To ALL, no inbound
 > msg id to match starts new?)
 > > > RFC822ReplyID    <4310E279.2.fidobbsdoord@aceshigh.dyn.dhs.org>
 > > > RFC822MsgID      <43111DB3.3.fidobbsdoord@aceshigh.dyn.dhs.org>

I'm not understanding what you're posting here.

 > PID says Synchronet 3.12a, this was a remote reply to my message. 

The PID is irrelevant.

 > We have
 > an ID match, and ok to/from
 > > > RFC822ReplyID    <43111DB3.3.fidobbsdoord@aceshigh.dyn.dhs.org>
 > 
 > No RFC MSG ID on the header.
 > 
 > My reply to the above message, via OE NNTP (displays as To ALL, no inbound
 > msg id to match starts new?)
 > > > RFC822ReplyID    <4311FBC6.4.fidobbsdoord@aceshigh.dyn.dhs.org>
 > > > RFC822MsgID      <43132772.5.fidobbsdoord@aceshigh.dyn.dhs.org>
 > 
 > > It's not clear to me which of those messages was posted via NNTP and which
 > > weren't, so I don't really know what to say.
 > 
 > I hope the above is more helpful.
 > 
 > > If you post a reply via NNTP and the RFC822ReplyID field matches the
 > > original
 > > message's RFC822MsgID field, then the "to" user should be automatically
 > > set
 > > accordingly.
 > 
 > I'm understanding.  The threading makes perfect sence.  So I guess the
 > question becomes why the replies to my messages are not carrying rfc msg
 > id's on them?

I don't know. Can check the aritcles in OE?

                                                  digital man

Snapple "Real Fact" #87:
A mile on the ocean and a mile on land are not the same distance.


.