Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 25, 2022. It is now read-only.

Delta-core to always refer to last message for improved non-Delta mail app threading #72

Closed
hpk42 opened this issue Dec 9, 2017 · 8 comments · Fixed by #407
Closed
Assignees
Labels
spec issues affecting the interoperability with e-mail
Milestone

Comments

@hpk42
Copy link
Contributor

hpk42 commented Dec 9, 2017

When i write a mail with my non-Delta mail app to Delta/Android and Delta/Android replies, it shows up in a totally different mail thread, i.e. does not reference my mail. I suggest that Delta always references the last mail in a message chat window -- seen from the non-Delta mail app that feels natural and for Delta/Android it doesn't change anything: the message and its replies will simply appear in chronological order.

@r10s
Copy link
Member

r10s commented Dec 10, 2017

Would it help if Delta Chat uses the same References header as the mail from the non-Delta-Client?
In fact, Delta Chat generates a random one to keep things for other MUAs together (see here) - obviously, this does not work for the first reply.

Using the In-Reply-To: does not work well - many MUAs are not prepared for threads nested very deeply which would happen with Delta Chat very easiy, see deltachat/deltachat-android#36 (comment)

@r10s r10s added the spec issues affecting the interoperability with e-mail label Apr 30, 2018
@valeriopaladino
Copy link

Maybe this could be made into a configurable option? Apparently the In-Reply-To header could use the same logic used for Chat-Predecessor (

mailimf_fields_add(imf_fields, mailimf_field_new_custom(strdup("Chat-Predecessor"), strdup(factory->predecessor)));
), or maybe use the first message in the tread, to have a single flat thread in Gmail (which is how the mails are displayed in Evolution right now).

@hpk42
Copy link
Contributor Author

hpk42 commented Oct 24, 2018

It's worth a try IMO to set "in-reply-to" to the first message in a chat, instead of the last one. It would avoid threading. @r10s or was there something that makes this a bad idea?

@r10s
Copy link
Member

r10s commented Oct 24, 2018

@hpk42 we can try just try it and see how this works.

might cause some problems if the original message is very old and maybe deleted or so. not sure.

@r10s
Copy link
Member

r10s commented Oct 25, 2018

@hpk42 the commit ec9418a references the newest message not sent by SELF. this was simpler and more straight forward and seems to cause less problems for a first shot.

if there is no newest message not sent by SELF, currently no threading happens (we can fix this, however, maybe fix the "larger" questions first :)

always using the oldest one would be just a change from min() to max() in the select statement from the linked commit, however, as mentioned, if this is sufficient, it will be easy - if we want a new anchor every some days or so, it would get more complicated.

EDIT: what may cause problems when referring to the first message are top-level messages sent from other MUAs - answers to these mails would be sorted to a different thread then.

let me know what you're thinking :)

@testbird
Copy link
Contributor

testbird commented Nov 14, 2018

Would it help if Delta Chat uses the same References header as the mail from the non-Delta-Client?

That!
Exept for MUAs not supporting the References header, it would likely be the better (default) solution. Not depending on a continuous history, and no deep nesting of messages.

The full threading may still serve as a very good per chat option!

@testbird
Copy link
Contributor

testbird commented Nov 14, 2018

If there is no explicit References header in the received non-Chat message, the References in the reply may be set to the message ID of the received non-Chat message (instead of a randomly created one).

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jul 18, 2019

Why is this issue closed? It still exists. MUA users still receive seperate emails from me clogging up their inbox.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
spec issues affecting the interoperability with e-mail
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants