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 08:41:22PM +0200, Alain Bench <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mutt 1.4 has wonderfull code for threading: powerfull, versatile,
> fast, configurable to everyone's taste, informative (I mean the "&?"
> missing and the "*" broken). But a little bit fragile: Perhaps too much
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
On 2002-06-13, Alain Bench wrote:
> Hello Christoph,
>
> On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 10:23:01 AM +0300, Christoph Bugel wrote:
>
> > I found that my local mbox files contain lots of headers of the form
> > In-reply-to: <"from userxyz"@host>
>
> Do you have an MTA called "iPlanet Messagin
On 2002-06-12, Alain Bench wrote:
[...]
> Calm down! ;-) Situation is not *so* critical:
ok ;-)
> First: many readers use more "References:" than "In-Reply-To:" to
> show threads, and Mutt 1.2.5 posts this field cleanly.
>
> Second: trash loaded IRT field is not a problem of Mutt 1.
* Christoph Bugel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-06-12]:
>
>
> > And the difference between In-Reply-To and References is
> > also trivial for the case that you reply to multiple
> > messages at once: it can't be handled within References
>
> hmm, I never understood the concept of replying to multip
On 2002-06-12, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> * 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:
[...]
> > still, I thought that *anything* after the In-Reply-To: is
> > supposed to be a message-id?
[...]
> It dep
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
I am using mutt 1.4, and it sometimes gets the threads wrong.
The symptom is that some messages of a thread wil appear in an entirely
unrelated thread..
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"@
11 matches
Mail list logo
