This message responds to several others, and contains a References header for
each of them. So it cannot be expected that existing MUAs will thread them
particularly well. So the things to look out for are:
1. Did it arrive with all of them intact?
2. Did is arrive with at least one of them intact? If so, was it the first
(can be recognized by presence of
3. Did it do anything really nasty with the threading?
4. Did it even manage to make some use of the extra headers?
In <41EAAA90(_dot_)6D6F(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> Frank Ellermann
Your second References: are shown as Original-References:
For gateways that's probably the best solution, and it's
compatible with William's draft about Original-* headers.
In <44CE0053-6804-11D9-8193-000393DB5366(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> Keith
Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
barf. the last thing we need is for agents to start renaming headers.
No, that is perfectly acceptable in this case. All I expect for the moment is
for existing agents to see and utilize at least one of those headers,
preferably the first one. That should get the message threaded with at least
one of its precursors, and one cannot expect more of an existing user agent in
_any_ scheme designed to address this problem.
In <WGs+lZEeK46BFAd2(_at_)paulo-adsl(_dot_)demon(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> Paul
Overell <paul(_dot_)overell(_at_)thus(_dot_)net> writes:
Arrived with two (identical) References: headers.
The MUA, Turnpike, will ignore the second and subsequent Reference:
headers. So no problem caused and threaded OK.
OK, that is fine.
The copy that came back to my own machine also had both headers intact.
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave,
CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5