On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 09:25:56AM -0700, Will Yardley wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 11:33:55AM -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > > If so that feature may not be working correctly... > > That is the old format for the mutt version I'm using. The new format > looks like > > <zhqwnyqym6ino...@hostname.example.com> > > Thought you were on that long thread about this when it changed a while > back, but maybe remembering wrong.
I was--but I guess the source of my confusion is I don't actually care what the message ID format is (as should no user), so I never bothered to internalize it, but I vaguely (mis)remembered it had (I thought one, but at least one) more dot-separated components. My issue was never with the specifics of the format, but rather the practical benefit of the changes and the spurious logic in favor of them vs. the cost of implementing and maintaining them. Cheers -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
