On 2/9/99 11:27 AM , Ken Manheimer klm@digicool.com said:

Hmm. I'd certainly prefer it to stack deeper than to arbitrarily break threads. It kinds looks like they break when a message lacks a "references:" header, but not always.

That's kinda what I was curious about. What the mechanism is for the breaking of threads. It definitely looks like one-a' them 'not always' rules. <grin>

(Another thing i'd like is for the message dates to be include in the indexes, *at least* in the sort-by-date index.

That would definitely be cool. Digi-cool.

But i know i won't have time to add this for a while...)

<grin> Any other answer, and I'd keep harassin' ya.