[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] mail threading headers

From: Robert Elz
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] mail threading headers
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 04:06:44 +0700

    Date:        Thu, 25 May 2006 16:02:48 -0400
    From:        Paul Fox <address@hidden>
    Message-ID:  <address@hidden>

  | [ so far so good (modulo the fact that i have no idea how one would
  | attempt to reply to more than one message at once) ]

If you mean "no idea how" in the sense of "using nmh", then right, nmh
doesn't allow for that possibility.

If you mean it in the sense of "that would be an absurd concept", then
no, replying to multiple messages in one reply is a perfectly sane thing
to do, and one which I (and numerous others) do quite frequently.   I don't
always go to the trouble of generating the correct "in-reply-to" though
I do sometimes.   When I do, I do it manually...

  | so -- how important is it to use In-reply-to in a new References
  | header if there was no previous References header?

Not very...

  | the default nmh template doesn't do it.  should we care?

Yes, we should care, and no, the template should not do it, or at least,
not without lots more support in the form of new format functions.

The problem is that it is quite common to see things like (I take this
from a nmh-workers list message of just a day or two ago) ...

  In-reply-to: Message from Jon Steinhart <address@hidden> on Wed,
        24 May 2006 19:48:53

and we don't want to generate

  References: Message from Jon Steinhart <address@hidden> on Wed, 24 May
        2006 19:48:53 -0700.<address@hidden>

or anything like it.   We'd need the ability to hunt around in this
(now non-standard, but still quite common) form of In-reply-to header
and dig out the message-id part of it.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]