Stasinos Konstantopoulos [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Op za. 25 sep 1999 21:01:11 zei Jan Peter Hecking:
> > On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 06:46:39PM +0200, Stasinos Konstantopoulos wrote:
> > > When I receive emails from people who use %$#@& outlook there is no
> > > In-Reply-To field even though they have replied to me rather than
> > > compose a new mail (the subject is indeed Re: <prev subj>).
> > >
> > > Having failed to persuade them to use a real MUA, I was wondering if
> > > the following exists in mutt: it would somewhat improve the situation
> > > if I could manually force a given message to be added to a thread.
> >
> > Maybe you have strict_threads set in your .muttrc? If strict_threads
> > is unset (which is the default, see below) mutt will try to add
> > messages to threads if they share a common subject line.
>
> I do have strict_threads set, and I think it's a good thing to have it
> so, but I would also like to be able to manually, explicitly add the
> odd message to a thread if I need to.
Search the list archives... someone posted a patch to do this fairly
recently. I asked him for a URL I could link from the mutt page, but he
never got back to me.
--
Jeremy Blosser | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://jblosser.firinn.org/
-----------------+-------------------------+------------------------------
"If Microsoft can change and compete on quality, I've won." -- L. Torvalds
PGP signature
