From: Marten Veldthuis <marten@veldthuis.com>
To: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>, Mark Anderson <markr.anderson@amd.com>,
	notmuch <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
In-Reply-To: <87ocm64ivu.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
References: <1260400470-sup-5775@testarossa>
	<87ws0ug23f.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
	<87ljha3avx.fsf@home.veldthuis.com>
	<87ocm64ivu.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:54:20 +0100
Message-ID:
 <87my1kkzbn.fsf@marten.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: [notmuch] Threading
Precedence: list

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:30:13 -0800, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
> But I still have a hard time justifying user operations to manipulate
> threading. The whole point of threading is to make it faster to process
> and read messages. But manual operations like joining and splitting
> threads seem like the user just doing more work, and that *after* having
> read the messages. So that seems mostly backwards to me.

By the way, Outlook & Exchange suck (or at least some versions do), and
don't seem to generate In-Reply-To and References: headers. Just got a
mail which prompted me to write this mail. I'd really like to be able to
join messages in a case like this.

-- 
- Marten