Re: [Nmh-workers] thread mangling python-list mailing list to comp.lang.python google group

[Laura Creighton]

In a message of Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:12:55 -0400, Ken Hornstein writes:
>>>From a skim of the headers, you could try making your In-Reply-To comply
>>with RFC 2822.  IOW, have it contain just the message ID of the email
>>you are replying to and not the human-readable gunk around it.  (It can
>>actually have more than one message ID, but it's not References so you
>>probably just want the MID of the email given to repl(1).)  See RFC
>>2822, 3.6.4, `Identification fields'.
>
>Ralph has given you the answer, but let me expand on it a bit.
>
>Since in that message you refer to yourself as an 'old fart' and mention
>programming in the 1970s, you've probably been using MH/nmh for approximately
>forever.

Exactly.

>Probably somewhere along the way you copied the MH-supplied
>replcomps to your ~/Mail directory and modified it.  In doing that, you
>copied the then-standard In-Reply-To format, which would generate things
>like:
>
>In-Reply-To: Message from Chris Angelico <address@hidden> of "Wed,
> 18 Feb 2015 20:36:10 +1100."
>
>Way back in RFC 822, this format was fine.  But nowadays things have
>been tightened up and from RFC 2822 the official format for In-Reply-To
>is that it should only contain a Message-ID; a lot of mail software use
>that for threading purposes (they also use References).  By default nmh
>will generate that ... except that people that have old replcomps around
>are still sending out the old format.

And that is me, too.

>So, that was the long answer.  Short answer: Replace/append these lines
>to your replcomps:
>
>%<{message-id}In-reply-to: %{message-id}\n%>\
>%<{message-id}References: \
>%<{references}%(void{references})%(trim)%(putstr) %>\
>%(void{message-id})%(trim)%(putstr)\n%>\
>
>And if you really want a 'in-reply-to' like header, use this:
>
>Comments: In-reply-to \
>%<{from}%(void{from})%?(void{apparently-from})%|%(void{sender})%>\
>%(trim)%(putstr)\n\
>   message dated "%<(nodate{date})%{date}%|%(tws{date})%>."
>
>--Ken

And this worked perfectly.  Thank you very much, perceptive man. :)
You diagnosed the problem exactly.

Laura