After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 660556 - Failing to add Message-ID to messages in IMAP Sent folder
Failing to add Message-ID to messages in IMAP Sent folder
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 635347
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Mailer
3.0.x (obsolete)
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-mail-maintainers
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2011-09-30 10:14 UTC by Ian Campbell
Modified: 2011-09-30 12:39 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Description Ian Campbell 2011-09-30 10:14:01 UTC 
When I send a mail to a mailing list it ends up coming back to me with a message-id like "<1317371652.26672.236.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>" (so this is what I beleive is actually getting sent and this makes sense).

However the version of the same mail in my (Exchange IMAP) sent box has "<45B8991A987A4149B40F1A061BF49097B2EBA64834@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>".

On another mail account which is a Courier IMAP server the mails in my Sent box appear to have no Message-ID at all, which seem consistent with this being a client side issue (which exchange is "fixing" for me by making one up).

I need to be able to find the actual message-id used for a sent mail so I can use e.g. "git send-email --in-reply-to" etc. I guess it's possibly a violation of some standard or other too?

This appeared to start happening around about the time when I upgraded my Debian packaged version 2.32.3-3 -> 3.0.3-1+b1. I still have 2.6.32.3 on another machine and it does not appear to have this issue.
Comment 1 Matthew Barnes 2011-09-30 12:39:01 UTC 
Thanks for taking the time to report this bug.
This particular bug has already been reported into our bug tracking system, but we are happy to tell you that the problem has already been fixed. It should be solved in the next software version. You may want to check for a software upgrade.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 635347 ***