OT - EMEW (Enhanced Message-ID as Email Watermark) breaks pipermail threading

[Steve Freegard]

Hi Mark,

Steve Freegard wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> Mark Sapiro wrote:
>> I notice a few frequent posters on this list, including Jules since
>> late May, appear to receive list posts with Message-IDs munged with
>> EMEW watermarks. Thus their replies to list posts have In-Reply-To:
>> with the munged Message-ID which breaks threading in the pipermail
>> archive at <http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/>
>> (every time Jules replies to a post, a new thread is started).
>>
>> I am a Mailman developer and am concerned about what, if anything, I
>> should do about this for the near term. My specific concerns are
>>
>> 1. how wide spread is the use of EMEW likely to become.
> 
> Anyone using BarricadeMX can switch this on at any time.
> 
>> 2. How do I recognize the added data in the Message-Id? It looks like
>> the regexp 'EMEW-[0-9A-Za-z]{6}[0-9a-f]{32}-' will work and removing
>> the match will restore the original Message-ID (or at least the
>> immediately prior Message-ID). Is that a good regexp, or is there a
>> better one?
> 
> That regexp should work just fine.
> 
> However - you shouldn't modify Mailman in any way - there's obviously a 
> bug that we need to fix.  We've simply not noticed it as I read the list 
> using the GMane gateway and it threads just fine in Thunderbird.
> 
>> 3. Are there products other than BarricadeMX that are munging
>> Message-IDs in other ways for similar reasons.
> 
> No to my knowledge.
> 
>> I haven't been able to find much on the web about this. I would
>> appreciate any advice or additional information anyone can point me to.
> 
> We'll take this off-line and I'll contact you later once I've had a 
> chance to speak to one of my colleagues.  We can then work out a fix and 
> push it out to all the BarricadeMX users via yum.
> 

My previous reply appears not to have made it to the list and I can't 
find it anywhere in Thunderbird, so this is a re-send - apologies if you 
get it more than once.

I'd forgotten to let you know that this was fixed in BarricadeMX v2.1.53 
(the current version is now 2.1.60) as suspected it was a bug that 
caused the headers to be modified when they shouldn't have been.

Kind regards,
Steve.