Re: Switching to Discourse

Cameron Simpson writes:

 > 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/[email protected]>
 >     In-Reply-To: <topic/[email protected]>
 >     References: <topic/[email protected]>

I'm tempted to write something uncivil, but instead I'm gonna go hug a
puppy and weep.

 > So at present Discourse's email implementation is buggy. I need to 
 > submit a bug report.

Thank you!

You may find it useful to cite RFC 5322, section 3.6.4, and emphasize
"unique" while mentioning the algorithm for populating References and
In-Reply-To presented there.

 > _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. [...]
 > I don't expect that to change. 

That's just plain obnoxious.  Anybody who's in the CCs who
participates in "email mode" will get (practically speaking)
unfilterable duplicates, and (if there is offline discussion) a bogus
new thread.

I wonder if this goes all the way through to the backend database (ie,
 the only id a message gets are its thread id, a timestamp, and some
way to ensure a total order in the case of equal timestamps), and the
only place in Discourse where the unique Message-ID appears is in the
outgoing message.  In that case getting any sanity in Discourse email
could be very expensive for Discourse.

Steve