On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 11:32 -0500, John Peacock wrote:
Geo Carncross wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 10:53 -0500, John Peacock wrote:
Geo Carncross wrote:
But not for you. Thunderbird can easily find messages by Message-Id.
In thunderbird:
Edit -> Find -> Search Messages (Shift-F) change "field" to "Customize" enter "Message-ID" -> click "Add" Click OK pick "Message-ID" from field-list enter message ID into contains-field hit Search.
That's not what I would consider easy (in the sense that the client would automatically understand the Message-ID in context).
I'm so glad I don't have to agree with what you consider "easy".
I happen find that to be about as easy as searching for anything else in Thunderbird.
In the meantime, fill out a bug report with Thunderbird. They could be more helpful.
FWIW: Outlook and Outlook Express can also search Message-IDs. So can grep.
I'm glad, at least, that you now know that Message-Ids are not completely "useless in every mail client [you] have ever used" -- it was just you didn't know how to use any mail client you have ever used.
Put dovecot.org into your IMAP client (anonymous), and search there. http://www.dovecot.org/mailinglists.html
That's more helpful.
But I agree: the Pipermail installation should be configured to include Message-IDs so that google can search it for them.
That would be nice too, but then the appropriate citation would be to the Google search, not just the bare Message-ID...
Why do you insist I dissect google queries?
You CAN ALWAYS make use of the Message-ID- even if your email client presently makes it less convenient than you would like.
Google [would be] helpful [to me] if the archive has been indexed recently, and I'm at work.
At home (however), I do my IMAP offline. Google is completely worthless to me there.
So, no: the appropriate citation would be a Message-ID.
-- Internet Connection High Quality Web Hosting http://www.internetconnection.net/