Hi Vincent, > Date: 2026-08-25 01:15:32+0200 > From: Vincent Lefevre <[email protected]> > > On 2026-08-24 10:26:30 +0100, Ian Collier via Mutt-dev wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2026 at 10:19:11PM -0400, Kurt Hackenberg wrote: > > > I think Mutt should not do that, because a forwarded message is not a > > > reply. > > > Those two message types are used for different purposes. Conflating them > > > would cause confusion and frustration. > > > > I agree that a forwarded message is not a reply and should not be > > recorded in the In-Reply-To header. However, I think that if you > > forward a message then you are explicitly referring to it, and so there > > is no clear reason why the References header should not be used. On the > > other hand, this doesn't benefit the recipient, because they don't have > > the original message (or you wouldn't have needed to forward it). > > If the forwarded message has > > References: <A> <B> <C> > Message-ID: <D> > > it is debatable whether to put <D> in the "References:" of the new > message. But it really makes sense to still have <A> <B> <C> in the > "References:" of the new message.
Hmmm, agree.
And as a consequence, I think I'm tending more towards the approach of
thunderbird(1), which is to behave exactly as if it were a reply.
Otherwise, it'd be hard to know exactly where to thread the message.
I think it might be good to have:
References: <A> <B> <C> <D>
In-Reply-To: <D>
But at the very least it should have:
References: <A> <B> <C> <D>
In-Reply-To:
Have a lovely day!
Alex
--
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
