On Sun, Sep 06, 2026 at 10:27:51AM +0200, Alejandro Colomar via Mutt-dev wrote:
Feedback is welcome on the number to display. The full list might take up too much room in the headers and be awkward to remove. While listing just one might look like a bug and invite endless questions. I've chosen three but let me know if you think differently.I personally prefer to see the entire field. In the end, one has to 'unignore' the header to show it in the editor, right?
No, this isn't the same path as viewing the message. It will show up for anyone with $forward_references answered 'yes'.
If I want to see it in the editor, it doesn't hurt to see it entirely, and it might be interesting at some point. After all, vim(1) --and other editors-- can skip the field with a single key press, and in many cases, a long field will just be hidden at the right margin (and can be easily controlled).
Mutt actually generates the header with each reference on a single line. So each reference included will take up a single line. Mutt caps the actual sent header to 10, so there's no point in setting the edithdr above 10. But I think that's a lot of lines at the top of the editor.
Try the patch out and test forwarding a message in a deep thread. But change this line in the patch for sendlib.c:
+ mutt_write_references(env->references, fp, 3); into + mutt_write_references(env->references, fp, 10); And let me know what you think. Thanks! -- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
