On June 27, 2003 at 14:36, Glenn Burkhardt wrote:
Apparently the powers that be don't want informational messages to be part
of the 'In-Reply-To:" fields anymore (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html).
The obsolete fields could look like:
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:35:24 EDT."
<200306271735(_dot_)h5RHZOmm001391(_at_)aoi-industries(_dot_)com>
which is what nmh puts in by default. Now only the information in the
angle brackets is to be supplied.
Should we change this?
+1
I vote for the change. My own repl.filter just includes the message-id.
I've noticed that some MUAs cannot handle the informative part and
generated a malformed msg-id in the References field they create
in a reply.
--ewh