The following reply was made to PR mutt/1116; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Cameron Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: mutt/1116: Fails to thread properly without an @ in msg ID Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 11:45:50 +1100
On 02Mar2007 13:05, Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Part of the problem is that there's little way to extract | message-IDs from "In-Reply-To" headers -- except looking for valid | syntax. Well, you could always use a forgiving syntax that allowed "@" to be optional for parsing purposes, something like a "<[^>]*>" regexp instead of "<[^@>[EMAIL PROTECTED]@>]*>" (yes, I know the rRFC token stream is more complicated than that). It would let you thread in the face of this particular type of syntax bustedness, though of course arbitrary other bustedness may not be handled. However, mutt should never emit a bad message-id, and so what do you put in References: or In-Reply-To: for such a message? It's a slippery slope, and I don't like it much. Maybe we're asking the wrong question. Christoph, where do these bogus message-ids come from? -- Cameron Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ Having been erased, The document you're seeking Must now be retyped. - Haiku Error Messages http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/chal/1998/02/10chal2.html
