On 2002-06-13, Daniel Eisenbud wrote: > Currently, mutt uses the following heuristic: if there is just an > in-reply-to header, mutt uses all the message-ids that it can find > there, until it finds a message that's actually in the mailbox. If > there's just a references header, it does the same. If there are both, > it uses the first message-id in the in-reply-to. Then it checks the > first message-id in references to see if it's the same. If it's not the > same, it uses it, if it is the same, it skips it, and then it keeps > following the message-ids in references until it finds an existing > message or runs out of message-ids. It turns out that some broken > versions of Eudora for Windows (and maybe other mailers too) put the > first reference in in-reply-to and then put the rest in references, so > we lose if we skip in-reply-to altogether whenever references is there.
BTW, I tried (not very hard, perhaps) to find this heuristic by reading the sources, and failed. (I'm was familiar with the sourcecode). Wouldn't it be a good idea to put the above text as a comment in the relevant sourcefile? > Now that you know you have software that's feeding you broken > in-reply-to headers, a procmail recipe to strip out those headers when > they're broken (or change them to x-in-reply-to, or whatever) so mutt > will just go by the references, is probably a good idea. Thanks, I didn't think of procmail yet. I'll do that. (until a better solution is found sometime) And I'll contact my ISP too. Christoph
