On 2002-06-12, Rocco Rutte wrote: > * 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: [...] > > 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. [...] > > 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.
So I guess the conclusion is: mutt-1.2.5 users break threading for everyone else on a mailing list! They should stop doing so immediately! This is not just a case of "please upgrade, there are a lot of new features", this is a cse of "your mail client is sending wrong and non-compliant headers. Using mutt-1.2.5 is considered RUDE!" > 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 hmm, I never understood the concept of replying to multiple messages. Seems like counter intuitive, and over complicated to me. Also, the threading display will become very 'interesting' when messages have multiple parents.
