[Tickets #13495] Re: "Reply state" not synched over devices

[noreply at bugs.horde.org]

BITTE NICHT AUF DIESE NACHRICHT ANTWORTEN. NACHRICHTEN AN DIESE  
E-MAIL-ADRESSE WERDEN NICHT GELESEN.

Ticket-URL: http://bugs.horde.org/ticket/13495
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Ticket           | 13495
  Aktualisiert Von | patrick at spamreducer.eu
  Zusammenfassung  | "Reply state" not synched over devices
  Warteschlange    | Synchronization
  Version          | Git master
  Typ              | Bug
  Status           | Not A Bug
  Priorität        | 1. Low
  Milestone        |
  Patch            |
  Zuständige       | Michael Rubinsky
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


patrick at spamreducer.eu (2014-08-25 16:54) hat geschrieben:

>>> This is because OL doesn't send "SMART" replies or forwards, so it's
>>> not obvious it's a reply. We can sniff out the In-Reply-To header
>>> though.
>>
>> ..and again it's some Outlook "magic"..
>>
>> As quoted from Microsoft since EAS 14.0 it is implemented in every
>> their software, but it is *NOT* .
>
> This one isn't really a fault. The specs don't state that a SMART  
> request MUST be used, only that it CAN be used to save bandwidth.  
> The SMART request saves bandwidth at the expense of server load  
> (since the original IMAP message must be fetched from the IMAP  
> server and parsed).
>

Agree, but they should try smartreply and smarforward as default..
Well we can't do anything.

> After looking at this further, though, it's not going to be possible  
> to work around this since we have NO way of knowing if it's a reply  
> vs a forward, nor do we know the original UID of the original IMAP  
> message, or even what folder it's from (so we can't efficiently look  
> it up).

I'm not really understanding what you mean..

Think about this test-scenario:

1. I get a message from lets say "client at gmail.com"
   -> message-header:
------------8<----------------------------------------------------------------
Message-ID:  
<CACQS2qqQrAa2QMi=pHRB4Rgn8XZtAhuqCq99LvT-Kp4SbU4LNQ at mail.gmail.com>
------------8<----------------------------------------------------------------

2. I reply to this message from OL2013:
   -> message-header(s):
------------8<----------------------------------------------------------------
References:  
<CACQS2qqQrAa2QMi=pHRB4Rgn8XZtAhuqCq99LvT-Kp4SbU4LNQ at mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:  
<CACQS2qqQrAa2QMi=pHRB4Rgn8XZtAhuqCq99LvT-Kp4SbU4LNQ at mail.gmail.com>
------------8<----------------------------------------------------------------

3. I forward this message from OL2013:
------------8<----------------------------------------------------------------
References:  
<CACQS2qqQrAa2QMi=pHRB4Rgn8XZtAhuqCq99LvT-Kp4SbU4LNQ at mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:  
<CACQS2qqQrAa2QMi=pHRB4Rgn8XZtAhuqCq99LvT-Kp4SbU4LNQ at mail.gmail.com>
------------8<----------------------------------------------------------------

..so the problems in coding would be:
   1. saving the original "Message-ID" vs. "UID"
   2. finding a possibility to distinguish if it's a REPLY or FORWARD  
(parsing the Subject is not OK since it could be changed)

Am I supposing this right?