On 2026-08-23 13:14:45 +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 04:57:21PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar via Mutt-dev > wrote: > > When I forward a message, I want to have it threaded under the original > > mail. For that, I manually add either an In-Reply-To or a References > > (depending on my mood that day, I guess) to have it threaded by mutt(1). > > > > I often forget to do this, so it would be nice if mutt(1) would do it > > automatically. > > > > I know some people are against this (especially the In-Reply-To one, > > since it's not a reply, technically). > > > > What do you think of adding a 'References' header field to forwarded > > mails? > > > > Should we do it with a new config? (I prefer avoiding a new config, but > > if we can't have consensus on changing the behavior for everyone, it > > would be a viable way.) > > This is technically easy to change, but it's heresy from an email client > perspective. :-) The biggest issue for me is that it doesn't affect just > you, but the receiver of the email too. > > I'd need to be persuaded that this isn't just "yet another request for a > config that will be used by three people". I invite others to chime in if > you agree or disagree with the proposal.
This depends on the forward. Sometimes, one may want to avoid references to the other messages, and sometimes, one wishes to keep the references, e.g. because after a reply, one forgets to put someone in Cc (who may have been part in the current thread), though there's also <resend-message>, depending on the context. I think I would like to have the choice. -- Vincent Lefèvre <[email protected]> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Pascaline project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
