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
On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 11:44:50AM +0200, Rocco Rutte
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In-Reply-To claims X but References claims Y. who do I
> > believe?
>
> I would guess that In-Reply-To will win if present. It's
> useless to try repairing broken threading by wild guesses.
>
> And the differen
Hi,
* 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:
[ wrong In-Reply-To from mutt 1.2.5.x ]
> > The problem is that mutt cannot reliably distinct between a
> > message-id and a mail adress if both are g
On 2002-06-11, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Christoph Bugel [02-06-11 22:21:30 +0200] wrote:
> > My observation is that if someone with mutt-1.2.5 replies
> > to a message by user1, it generates the following header:
>
> > In-Reply-To: <"from user1"@host1.org>
>
> The problem is that mutt can
Hi,
* Christoph Bugel [02-06-11 22:21:30 +0200] wrote:
> My observation is that if someone with mutt-1.2.5 replies
> to a message by user1, it generates the following header:
> In-Reply-To: <"from user1"@host1.org>
The problem is that mutt cannot reliably distinct between a
message-id and a mai
