Hi, * Christoph Bugel [02-06-12 11:23:05 +0200] wrote: > On 2002-06-11, Rocco Rutte wrote: > > * Christoph Bugel [02-06-11 22:21:30 +0200] wrote:
[ wrong In-Reply-To from mutt 1.2.5.x ] > > The problem is that mutt cannot reliably distinct between a > > message-id and a mail adress if both are given in angle > > brackets. IIRC mutt assumes that a local part of a mail > > address is at most 8 characters -- everything else is > > considered to be a message-id. I don't have a better > > solution. > hmmm... now that you mention it, yes, I did notice > something that's connected to the string's length. but > still, I thought that *anything* after the In-Reply-To: is > supposed to be a message-id? It depends on what RFC you claim to go conform with. > Quote from RFC 2822: > The "Message-ID:" field contains a single unique message identifier. > The "References:" and "In-Reply-To:" field each contain one or more > unique message identifiers, optionally separated by CFWS. The original RFC is 822 is from 1982 whereby 2822 is from 2001 which is newer than mutt 1.2.5. Compare 2822 to 822: ,----[ rfc822.txt ]- | / "Message-ID" ":" msg-id | / "In-Reply-To" ":" *(phrase / msg-id) `- > So it seems that <"from user1"@host1.org> is not a valid > thing to put after the In-Reply-To header, and since > mutt-1.2.5?? does exactly that, I wonder if I'll have to > live with broken threads until everyone will have stopped > using mutt-1.2.5? If mutt 1.2.5 claims to be RFC822 compliant this behaviour is correct, according to 2822 it's wrong. I still see lots of people using 1.2.5 but it's quite old and people should update. Also because there're lots of improvements. > In-Reply-To claims X but References claims Y. who do I > believe? I would guess that In-Reply-To will win if present. It's useless to try repairing broken threading by wild guesses. And the difference between In-Reply-To and References is also trivial for the case that you reply to multiple messages at once: it can't be handled within References (since this is a kind of a linear chain) but only with In-Reply-To because multiple parents may be specified. Cheers, Rocco
