On 2002-06-13, Rocco Rutte wrote: > 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?
fetchmail does by default rewrite some headers, but yes, according to the manpage, in-reply-to is not one of them. I was suspecting sendmail/fetchmail, because (a) it happens on various mailing lists, not just one, and (b) I can't believe I'm the only one seeing this.. > 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? yeah, that's easy to check. I'll ask around, and report back here. (need to do some work first though) Thanks for all the replies so far :)
