Hi, * Christoph Bugel [02-06-13 09:29:54 +0200] wrote: > On 2002-06-12, Alain Bench wrote:
> > set in_reply_to="%i" > I still don't understand what's going on though. I even > suspect that it's not the default $in_reply_to from > mutt-1.2.5 that confuses mutt-1.4. I found that my local > mbox files contain lots of headers of the form > In-reply-to: <"from userxyz"@host> but when I look at an > online mailing list archive, the reported header is > totally different! It has the default $in_reply_to format > (first the message-id, and then a lot of other text) I assume you look at the same message -- but something like this should not happen. > Could it be that sendmail or fetchmail are doing this to me? It's very unlikely, I guess. Why should they do? Sendmail and fetchmail are transfer and delivery agents and thus have nothing to do with In-Reply-To since this is a user header. If it was Delivered-To or Return-Path or something like that but In-Reply-To? Why should they try to correct (or whatever is going on here) it? But, if the headers in the archive and in your mbox are different, why does it have to be your side which changes them? It could be the archiver, too. So, why not ask on the list what others get? This list is mirrored into Usenet (mailing.unix.mutt-users, ask Google for it) and lots of headers are changed, too... Cheers, Rocco
