order within thread of threaded msgs
Tony E. Bennett
I use threading by default. Often the msgs are in surprising order, however.
This happens regardless of setting of gnus-thread-ignore-subject.
example:
parent msg is in my mbox already
pull in new mail from spool that contains 3 replies to parent
result is that the 3 new msgs are presented "backwards", as:
PARENT msg
newest reply
2nd newest reply
oldest reply
I would rather see:
PARENT msg
oldest reply
2nd newest reply
newest reply
Is current behavior this intended result? Is it configurable?
thanks
--
--tony tben...@nvidia.com
Tony E. Bennett
Maybe this is a simpler case. Here are headers from 2 msgs.
different time zones. I receive msg #1 first. When msg #2 arrived
a bit later it was put ahead of msg #1.
Is it possible the timezones are not properly considered
when sorting the mail?
msg #1
From tbennett Wed Dec 12 15:50:05 2001
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
[nil "" "12" "December" "2001" "14:49:44" "-0600" "Krishnakumar B" "ki...@cs.wustl.edu" "<dml3d2g...@samba.doc.wustl.edu>" "39" "Re: order within thread of threaded msgs" "^From:" nil nil "12" "200112200116:49:44" "order within thread of threaded msgs" (" " mark "[Krishnakumar B 12/12 39] " thread-indent "Re: order within thread of threaded msgs\n") "<m3r8q0x...@uh-oh.nvidia.com>" ("<m3r8q0x...@uh-oh.nvidia.com>")]
nil)
Received: from thelma.nvidia.com [172.16.217.28]
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4)
for tbennett@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:50:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from inspector42.nvidia.com (inspector42.nvidia.com [209.213.198.75])
by thelma.nvidia.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA27945
for <tben...@nvidia.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 12:49:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from taumsauk.cs.wustl.edu (cs.wustl.edu [128.252.165.15])
by inspector42.nvidia.com (8.11.3/8.11.2) with ESMTP id fBCKqwD12841
for <tben...@nvidia.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 12:52:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from samba.doc.wustl.edu (samba.doc.wustl.edu [128.252.160.42])
by taumsauk.cs.wustl.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA28056
for <tben...@nvidia.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:49:44 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from kitty@localhost)
by samba.doc.wustl.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fBCKniv25905;
Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:49:44 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: samba.doc.wustl.edu: kitty set sender to ki...@cs.wustl.edu using -f
References: <m3r8q0x...@uh-oh.nvidia.com>
In-Reply-To: <m3r8q0x...@uh-oh.nvidia.com>
Message-ID: <dml3d2g...@samba.doc.wustl.edu>
Lines: 39
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Civil Service)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-UIDL: 80a71fe5aef5dcf9eebbe64af7c08edf
From: Krishnakumar B <ki...@cs.wustl.edu>
Sender: ki...@cs.wustl.edu
To: tben...@nvidia.com (Tony E. Bennett)
Subject: Re: order within thread of threaded msgs
Date: 12 Dec 2001 14:49:44 -0600
msg #2
From tbennett Wed Dec 12 16:14:05 2001
X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]
[nil "Wednesday" "12" "December" "2001" "13:18:00" "-0800" "David Pearce" "DPe...@nvidia.com" "<8BEE3E7D6396D411B8D4...@nvtom.nvidia.com>" "1" "Can't dial out -- no lines free" "^From:" nil nil "12" "2001121216:18:00" "Can't dial out -- no lines free" (" " mark "[David L Pearce 12/12 1] " thread-indent "testing\n") nil nil]
nil)
Received: from thelma.nvidia.com [172.16.217.28]
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4)
for tbennett@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:14:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from NVVwall (nvvwall.nvidia.com [172.16.217.58])
by thelma.nvidia.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA08532
for <tben...@nvidia.com>; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:12:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-sc-0.nvidia.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
id <XV94VD28>; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:07:30 -0800
Message-ID: <8BEE3E7D6396D411B8D4...@nvtom.nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
X-UIDL: 2ae6a78399eaec361dc8d59cf9f92977
From: David Pearce <DPe...@nvidia.com>
To: Tony Bennett <tben...@nvidia.com>
Subject: testing,
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:18:00 -0800
--
--tony tben...@nvidia.com
Kyle Jones
> Maybe this is a simpler case. Here are headers from 2 msgs.
> different time zones. I receive msg #1 first. When msg #2 arrived
> a bit later it was put ahead of msg #1.
>
> Is it possible the timezones are not properly considered
> when sorting the mail?
Dates aren't considered at all within a thread, which I guess is
what you're complaining about.
Tony E. Bennett
> Dates aren't considered at all within a thread, which I guess is
> what you're complaining about.
Oh. I guess so. What is the criteria then? Does this mean 2 responses to
the same parent will be randomly ordered? They are not even ordered by the
order they show up in my spool file.
So given a threaded mbox and 2 unrelated "original" msgs, should the msgs be
ordered in date order? The headers I posted were from 2 such msgs but they
were put into the summary in "reverse" order.
thanks
--
--tony tben...@nvidia.com
Kyle Jones
>
> > Dates aren't considered at all within a thread, which I guess is
> > what you're complaining about.
>
> Oh. I guess so. What is the criteria then?
String collating sequence, ordered by message ID.
> So given a threaded mbox and 2 unrelated "original" msgs,
> should the msgs be ordered in date order? The headers I
> posted were from 2 such msgs but they were put into the
> summary in "reverse" order.
They will be ordered by the date of the oldest message in each
thread, older messages being ordered before newer messages.
Tony E. Bennett
kyle_...@wonderworks.com (Kyle Jones) writes:
> Tony E. Bennett <tben...@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > kyle_...@wonderworks.com (Kyle Jones) writes:
> >
> > > Dates aren't considered at all within a thread, which I guess is
> > > what you're complaining about.
> >
> > Oh. I guess so. What is the criteria then?
>
> String collating sequence, ordered by message ID.
Is it hard to sort this by date instead? Or is there some reason
that sorting by msg id is preferable?
> > So given a threaded mbox and 2 unrelated "original" msgs,
> > should the msgs be ordered in date order? The headers I
> > posted were from 2 such msgs but they were put into the
> > summary in "reverse" order.
>
> They will be ordered by the date of the oldest message in each
> thread, older messages being ordered before newer messages.
Here are the headers again. Newest header shows up first in this case,
but I can't see why.
msg#2 is in summary ahead of msg#1.
--
--tony tben...@nvidia.com
Kyle Jones
>
> kyle_...@wonderworks.com (Kyle Jones) writes:
>
> > Tony E. Bennett <tben...@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > > kyle_...@wonderworks.com (Kyle Jones) writes:
> > >
> > > > Dates aren't considered at all within a thread, which I guess is
> > > > what you're complaining about.
> > >
> > > Oh. I guess so. What is the criteria then?
> >
> > String collating sequence, ordered by message ID.
>
> Is it hard to sort this by date instead?
I don't think so. It didn't strike me as important at the time I
did the threading code I guess.
> Here are the headers again. Newest header shows up first in this case,
> but I can't see why.
Bad date parsing sometime in the past and the result was cached.
Use 'j' on the messages while threaded and they will reorder themselves.
Tony E. Bennett
> > > String collating sequence, ordered by message ID.
> >
> > Is it hard to sort this by date instead?
>
> I don't think so. It didn't strike me as important at the time I
> did the threading code I guess.
I have this sneaking feeling I'm missing something here. Sorting by message
id gives random (tho stable) ordering. Why is everyone not complaining about
this :-)
> > Here are the headers again. Newest header shows up first in this case,
> > but I can't see why.
> Bad date parsing sometime in the past and the result was cached.
> Use 'j' on the messages while threaded and they will reorder themselves.
This did not fix it, unfortunately. The last msg in my threaded mbox has a
msgid of:
Message-ID: <dml3d2g...@samba.doc.wustl.edu>
It has remained the last msg as I got a few hundred new emails, all(?) with
msg ids of the form:
Message-ID: <8BEE3E7D6396D411B8D4...@exchange.nvidia.com>
thanks
--
--tony tben...@nvidia.com
Kyle Jones
>
> > > > String collating sequence, ordered by message ID.
> > >
> > > Is it hard to sort this by date instead?
> >
> > I don't think so. It didn't strike me as important at the time I
> > did the threading code I guess.
>
> I have this sneaking feeling I'm missing something here.
> Sorting by message id gives random (tho stable) ordering.
> Why is everyone not complaining about this :-)
Probably because I was right and it doesn't matter much. :)
> > > Here are the headers again. Newest header shows up first in this case,
> > > but I can't see why.
>
> > Bad date parsing sometime in the past and the result was cached.
> > Use 'j' on the messages while threaded and they will reorder themselves.
>
> This did not fix it, unfortunately. The last msg in my threaded mbox has a
> msgid of:
>
> Message-ID: <dml3d2g...@samba.doc.wustl.edu>
>
> It has remained the last msg as I got a few hundred new emails, all(?) with
> msg ids of the form:
>
> Message-ID: <8BEE3E7D6396D411B8D4...@exchange.nvidia.com>
I need to see the Date headers. If the root message ID is
different then the messages are sorted by Date.
Kyle Jones
> kyle> different then the messages are sorted by Date.
>
> Attached is a folder with 2 threads, total of 6 msgs. The 2 replies to each
> thread show up in the "wrong" order in my opinion. Can you tell me why?
I thought we covered this already. If the root message ID is
different, the message are sorted by the date of the oldest
message in the thread. If the root message ID is the same the
messages are sorted by message ID. VM doesn't make any attempt
to sort messages by date within a thread. So the ordering of
sibling messages is essentially random.