Clearing attributes on non-referenced material
draft-buxey-document-00
| Document | Type | Expired Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Last updated | 2006-01-24 | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats |
Expired & archived
pdf
htmlized
bibtex
|
||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-buxey-document-00.txt
Abstract
RFC 822 [RFC0822] defines many headers which can be applied to email messages and RFC 2076 [RFC2076] provides a simple summary of the commonly occurring headers in headings of e-mail messages. Both of these RFCs define the 'In-Reply-To' and 'References' fields - which have since had their definitions improved in RFC 2822 [RFC2822] and RFC 1036 [RFC1036] respectively. These fields are used by 'thread capable' email clients to display messages grouped together in organised parent/child relationships that enable the reader to follow a train of thought or a process of information dissemination. However, if a reply to such a threaded message does not contain relevant follow-up information or is used as a platform to deliver a new message with new subject, then that reply is put within the already existing thread. This is known as 'Thread-Jacking'. This draft proposes a couple of techniques which can be undertaken to resolve this issue within the scope of email.
Authors
Alan Buxey (a.l.m.buxey@lboro.ac.uk)
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)