Re: [Nmh-workers] mail threading headers

[Paul Fox]

robert wrote:
 >   | [ 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.

yes, that's what i meant.  i confess i never think of headers other
than To/Cc/Subject as being edited on a normal basis by users --
it would never occur to me to edit the In-reply-to field manually.

 > 
 >   | 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
 >      -0700.<address@hidden> 

oh, right.  looks just like mine did, the day before yesterday.  i
notice that in the more recent templates, this longer version is moved
to a Comment: header, which makes more sense.

 > 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.

out of curiousity, is it "quite common" among anyone but mh users?  i.e.,
was that kind of verbosity in the In-reply-to header a recommended
thing at some point?

paul
=---------------------
 paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 68.5 degrees)