Hey All,

New around here :) - thought this might be the best place to get
answers.

I am trying to develop a service where a user can respond to
notification emails to perform certain actions. My original POC relied
on Message-ID and the In-Reply-To fields - which works fine on most
email clients (including Windows Desktop Outlook).

Here is the gotcha - Windows Mobile Outlook is completely non-
standards-compliant in this regard; and on top of this the Thread-
Index (which is a Microsoft invention - so I am very suprised). I have
messed around and inspected headers and Googled for hours to no avail.

Does anyone have any other ideas? Maybe a registry setting to enable
this? I tried attaching an alternate view with a nonce-bytes; but
Exchange immediately (and most probably, rightly so) rejected it as
spam. I doubt Outlook Mobile would even include this alternate view in
the reply.

Thanks a ton guys.

Jonathan Dickinson

Okay, so I did a little more experimentation and it looks like "Reply
All" keeps the Thread-Index sane. Why not In-Reply-To? This locks me
into Exchange-based deployments. And why only when "Reply All" is
used?

On Sep 21, 1:10*pm, jcdickinson <jonathand...******.com> wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> New around here :) - thought this might be the best place to get
> answers.
>
> I am trying to develop a service where a user can respond to
> notification emails to perform certain actions. My original POC relied
> on Message-ID and the In-Reply-To fields - which works fine on most
> email clients (including Windows Desktop Outlook).
>
> Here is the gotcha - Windows Mobile Outlook is completely non-
> standards-compliant in this regard; and on top of this the Thread-
> Index (which is a Microsoft invention - so I am very suprised). I have
> messed around and inspected headers and Googled for hours to no avail.
>
> Does anyone have any other ideas? Maybe a registry setting to enable
> this? I tried attaching an alternate view with a nonce-bytes; but
> Exchange immediately (and most probably, rightly so) rejected it as
> spam. I doubt Outlook Mobile would even include this alternate view in
> the reply.
>
> Thanks a ton guys.
>
> Jonathan Dickinson

several alternative mailer clients allow for even manually (!) modifying /
setting the SMTP headers. Also, several of them support Reply-To.

Is the problem still topical? If it is, I elaborate on these apps a bit
more.

jcdickinson <jonathand.za******.com> wrote in news:77ec447f-9569-40b1-a075-
2587bcc04191@f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:

> Okay, so I did a little more experimentation and it looks like "Reply
> All" keeps the Thread-Index sane. Why not In-Reply-To? This locks me
> into Exchange-based deployments. And why only when "Reply All" is
> used?
>
> On Sep 21, 1:10*pm, jcdickinson <jonathand...******.com> wrote:
>> Hey All,
>>
>> New around here :) - thought this might be the best place to get
>> answers.
>>
>> I am trying to develop a service where a user can respond to
>> notification emails to perform certain actions. My original POC relied
>> on Message-ID and the In-Reply-To fields - which works fine on most
>> email clients (including Windows Desktop Outlook).
>>
>> Here is the gotcha - Windows Mobile Outlook is completely non-
>> standards-compliant in this regard; and on top of this the Thread-
>> Index (which is a Microsoft invention - so I am very suprised). I have
>> messed around and inspected headers and Googled for hours to no avail.
>>
>> Does anyone have any other ideas? Maybe a registry setting to enable
>> this? I tried attaching an alternate view with a nonce-bytes; but
>> Exchange immediately (and most probably, rightly so) rejected it as
>> spam. I doubt Outlook Mobile would even include this alternate view in
>> the reply.
>>
>> Thanks a ton guys.
>>
>> Jonathan Dickinson
>