One thread interspersed with another.
mm
Sometimes I have part of one thread within another totally different
thread.
I have noticed this maybe 6 times, including today, when 15 posts from
an earlier thread showed up in the middle of a later thread. They
kept the original subject line.
Is this because I have a lot of posts dl'd for one newsgroup? About
37,000, most of them with bodies. Although there were fewer when
this happened before, maybe once every 3 months for the last 15
months.
FWIW the inserted thread segment is in date-order, with proper
indentation, but the segment as a whole does not fit in date order
with the thread it has intervened in.
Thanks for any help.
Carroll Robbins
<904mr41c7pu8kia15...@4ax.com>
>Sometimes I have part of one thread within another totally different
>thread.
I think that this is the hash collision bug which is common to all versions
of Agent.
To save space, Agent doesn't save the message-id's in the References header
used for threading. It creates a hash of each message-id but sometimes
different message-id's have the same hash. This is a hash collision and
causes mis-threading. The more messages in a folder, the more likely a hash
collision will occur. You could move older messages to an archive folder.
This is easier in newer versions of Agent.
--
Carroll B. Robbins, Jr.
mm
Thanks. That makes sense.
Nicetameetya
<NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> declared to all and sundry:
It would make even more sense to fix it ...
Ralph Fox
> [Default] On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:26:19 -0400, mm
> <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> declared to all and sundry:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:00:26 -0400, Carroll Robbins
>> <carroll...@ioa.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> To save space, Agent doesn't save the message-id's in the References header
>>> used for threading. It creates a hash of each message-id but sometimes
>>> different message-id's have the same hash. This is a hash collision and
>>> causes mis-threading. The more messages in a folder, the more likely a hash
>>> collision will occur. You could move older messages to an archive folder.
>>> This is easier in newer versions of Agent.
>> Thanks. That makes sense.
>
> It would make even more sense to fix it ...
Agent users have produced third-party patches for other things in Agent,
for example to allow custom headers in Agent 1.x
<http://www.pelegi.privat.t-online.de/body_patch.html>
It would be interesting to hear your views on why no one has produced
a third-party patch for the hash collision problem. Even though this message
has worked out how third parties might patch Agent to improve things...
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent/msg/ed76fba41f7f9f62>
>:-X
--
Regards
Ralph
Nicetameetya
<-rf-nz-@-.invalid> declared to all and sundry:
>On 2009-03-15 18:55, Nicetameetya wrote:
>> [Default] On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:26:19 -0400, mm
>> <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> declared to all and sundry:
>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:00:26 -0400, Carroll Robbins
>>> <carroll...@ioa.com.invalid> wrote:
>---snip---
>>>> To save space, Agent doesn't save the message-id's in the References header
>>>> used for threading. It creates a hash of each message-id but sometimes
>>>> different message-id's have the same hash. This is a hash collision and
>>>> causes mis-threading. The more messages in a folder, the more likely a hash
>>>> collision will occur. You could move older messages to an archive folder.
>>>> This is easier in newer versions of Agent.
>>> Thanks. That makes sense.
>>
>> It would make even more sense to fix it ...
>
<snip>
>It would be interesting to hear your views on why no one has produced
>a third-party patch for the hash collision problem. Even though this message
>has worked out how third parties might patch Agent to improve things...
><http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent/msg/ed76fba41f7f9f62>
>
>
> >:-X
Speaking from the standpoint of a programming illiterate, all I can
say is if anyone is waiting for *me* to produce the patch, they're
wasting their time.
OTOH I'm always happy to complain. ;-)b
Ralph Fox
> [Default] On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:54:54 +1300, Ralph Fox
> <-rf-nz-@-.invalid> declared to all and sundry:
>
>> It would be interesting to hear your views on why no one has produced
>> a third-party patch for the hash collision problem. Even though this message
>> has worked out how third parties might patch Agent to improve things...
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent/msg/ed76fba41f7f9f62>
>>
>>
>> >:-X
>
> Speaking from the standpoint of a programming illiterate, all I can
> say is if anyone is waiting for *me* to produce the patch, they're
> wasting their time.
>
> OTOH I'm always happy to complain. ;-)b
I wasn't trying to ask you to produce the patch.
OTOH you might think about whether the patch would
have any other side effects. 8-)
--
Regards
Ralph
Wayne Garmil
<gd...@anonymous.invalid.con> wrote:
>[Default] On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:26:19 -0400, mm
><NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> declared to all and sundry:
>
>>On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:00:26 -0400, Carroll Robbins
>><carroll...@ioa.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>I think that this is the hash collision bug which is common to all versions
>>>of Agent.
>>>
[snip]
>>
>>Thanks. That makes sense.
>
>It would make even more sense to fix it ...
I have seen the same hash collision happening in trn 3 and trn 4. And
I think Dialog and Xnews also have it. So this problem is more common
than just happening in Agent.
Wayne
--
Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem.