From: Camaleon <noela...@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 16:25:20 +0000 (UTC) > "http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=426149"; > Most probably my Pan version (0.132) still has that bug.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6 states, "The only required header fields are the origination date field and the originator address field(s). All other header fields are syntactically optional." The troublesome case is to attempt one reply to multiple parent messages. The syntax of References allows for a simple thread; not for a tree structure. Section 3.6.4. of rfc5322 states, '... trying to form a "References:" field for a reply that has multiple parents is discouraged; how to do so is not defined in this document.' A reasonable policy is to make a distinct reply for each relevant parent. In the past I've violated this more than once. You have demonstrated that the list manager threads correctly without In-Reply-To. So I say that Pan and the Debian list manager are OK whereas mutt is in error to remove References. To my understanding, bug report 426149 has misinterpreted specifications. Regards, ... Peter E. -- Telephone 1 360 639 0202. Bcc: peter at easthope.ca "http://carnot.yi.org/ " "http://members.shaw.ca/peasthope/index.html#Itinerary " -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/170757535.52785.34599@cantor.invalid
