[Question] Remove These Headers and Outlook conversation view

Eoin Kim Eoin.Kim at rcst.com.au
Fri Feb 16 06:34:13 UTC 2018

Thanks Mark,

Let me do some reading during the weekend and see if I can find something. Cheers.


-----Original Message-----
From: MailScanner [mailto:mailscanner-bounces+eoin.kim=rcst.com.au at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of Mark Sapiro
Sent: Friday, 16 February 2018 1:22 PM
To: mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
Subject: Re: [Question] Remove These Headers and Outlook conversation view

On 02/15/2018 06:40 PM, Eoin Kim wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> I was thinking for a while after reading your reply. I guess if I tweak
> the Message-ID: header,
>  1. There will be two initial points of conversation for receiver - the
>     first email arrived with attachment stripped and the second email
>     released from quarantine (original with attachment but Message-ID:
>     mangled)
>  2. From that point, depending on which message the receiver replies,
>     one conversation will grow but the other doesn’t.

Actually, I didn't consider the Outlook user's replies. As far as the
Outlook user herself is concerned, her reply in the conversation will be
threaded appropriately.  If she replies to the message with the munged
Message-ID: that reply will be In-Reply-To: the munged Message-ID: which
is unknown to all the other recipients so if only In-Reply-To: is
considered by them, it will look like a new thread (conversation).
However, there will also normally be a References: header in the reply
which lists all the Message-IDs in the thread and if that is used by
recipients for threading, their threads will be missing the one message,
but will probably be OK.

Note that when one replies to a message, what should happen is the
Message-ID: of the message being replied to is placed in In-Reply-To: of
the reply and is appended to the list of Message-IDs in References: of
the message being replied to and that new list is placed in References:
of the reply.

I.e. In-Reply-To: of a reply contains the immediately prior Message-ID:
and References: contains the whole chain of Message-IDs.

Note that your message to which this is a reply contained

In-Reply-To: <b5fb158f-76f7-88a7-14b0-cc72c2fa8f8b at msapiro.net>

which is the Message-ID: of my message to which you replied, and

References: <e06e548d42724a29896d997d841140af at rcst.com.au>
 <CABu_8z+SaUE4pu7R5a+fcLotOAyC-RCzV0xopHmsBWkDPuEJAw at mail.gmail.com>
 <ec1c5801-d877-6fac-26be-d44e2ebf283a at msapiro.net>
 <be7019a22917476389f3227f71853b16 at rcst.com.au>
 <81775d5a-cad9-ee1f-5060-6341d791519f at msapiro.net>
 <b4439e59a2054d118b5a29325812527c at rcst.com.au>
 <20180215230524.GA11648 at zia.aoc.nrao.edu>
 <38c58854643e49c1a0ea0dbf901ea1b0 at rcst.com.au>
 <20180215231541.GA11727 at zia.aoc.nrao.edu>
 <c0e0a51a16fa42dcab4fe67c14ba3e65 at rcst.com.au>
 <20180215233355.GA12600 at zia.aoc.nrao.edu>
 <3252521dc0cd4b7d81bb3e13bb0906b1 at rcst.com.au>
 <cf2bfaf74d5241718e21f1548db60db7 at rcst.com.au>
 <b5fb158f-76f7-88a7-14b0-cc72c2fa8f8b at msapiro.net>

which again is my message plus the 13 messages which preceded it in the

Of course, all this is dependent on the replying MUA doing the right thing.

Mark Sapiro <mark at msapiro.net>        The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California    better use your sense - B. Dylan

MailScanner mailing list
mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info

More information about the MailScanner mailing list