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 <jon@fourwinds.com> on Wed,
24 May 2006 19:48:53
-0700.<200605250248.k4P2mrQv010185@darkstar.fourwinds.com>
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, pgf@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 68.5 degrees)
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers