I am one of the 5 members of my team, all the other are using GMail Web App except me (cause I love EM!).
My problem is that, when answering an email from one of our customers and including the other members in CC, they visualise my answer on a separate conversation and this makes very impossible to follow the conversation which gets fragmented because of me.
I someway believe the problem is caused by the prefix “Re:” the settings are forcing me to put on the subject. Am I the only one having this issue? Can somebody suggest some possible solution.
Please help, don’t want to stop using this wonderful tool beccuse of this.
In eM Client the algorithm to group a conversation looks at message headers like message-id, in-reply-to and subject (ignoring the Re: or Fw:). This is pretty standard practice with other email clients as well, so removing the Re: should not affect the outcome either way. You are welcome to try; jst delete it from the subject before you send. You can’t do it automatically in eM Client, but in some other email clients you can.
I also use Thunderbird and Evolution, and replies I get from eM Client staff sent from eM Client appear correctly as part of conversations.
Maybe this is something peculiar with web interface.
Ciao Gary and thanks for your reply!
The problem is in the way my answers are viasualized in my collegues conversations, the “Re:” prefix opens a new conversation .
I will give this a try, however it would be extremely useful for me to have the chance to have NO prefix in the subject when replying… which is not possible now I believe.
I see it as a big issue, am I really just the only one? :S
Google recently made some changes to the way they group messages into conversations. They say that “we’re adding the requirement that an incoming message’s Reference header, if present, must reference IDs of previous messages in order to thread”.
I looked at eM Client’s headers on replies and forwards and they are correctly formatted to that requirement. They do include the reference header which I did not mention above. There does not appear to be any reason why they should not be included in the conversation.
Maybe a question for Google?