Quoted material from: "Eric Thomas" <[log in to unmask]>
My comments/questions interpolated. -- hdk

> Thanks for diagnosing this. It is indeed an incompatibility between
> IETFHDR_SUBJECT_TAG and SUBJECTHDR_SEQUENCE.
  :
[snip]
  :
>                                                       Everyone was happy
> again until SUBJECTHDR_SEQUENCE.

I really want the sequencing, because sometimes my discussion list has long,
multi-sided exchanges, and some subscribers' spam filters get shirty about
seeing the same subject over and over and start blocking the mail. I'm
hoping the sequence numbers are enough to keep those algorithms from
matching fresh contributions to the earlier ones.

So I've dropped the IETFHDR_SUBJECT_TAG until this gets fixed. I'll watch
the Release Notes: I pull a fresh copy whenever we upgrade.

>                                                        This is a more
> delicate edit (because of the risk of incrementing the
> sequence number when the message is in fact not
> distributed, or incrementing it twice).

I hadn't thought about how you'd have to implement the sequencing. Sometimes
it's good to be reminded just how complex a simple-looking feature can be.

>                                                     To make it work, I
> will have to use the normal, edited subject for
> IETFHDR_SUBJECT_TAG. If anyone complains, I will
> point out that it is clearly better than the current
> behaviour :-)

Yes, indeed it will be! But I'm curious (and the more I know, the less I get
caught by surprise); aside from the subject tagging, can you tell me the
difference between the "normal, edited subject" and the "pristine original"?
I didn't realize anything happened to subject lines except the optional
tagging.

Hal Keen