On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 12:58:42AM -0400, Kurt Hackenberg wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 10:58 +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:This reuses the existing Mutt functions to set references, which means they are like reply references: the full list. It clears out the In-Reply-To header afterwards, because I personally feel like that header is a step too far for a "forward".RFC 5322 says both headers are for replies. Treating In-Reply-To: as for replies, and References: as for something else, goes against that RFC.<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5322/#section-3.6.4> The "In-Reply-To:" and "References:" fields are used when creating a reply to a message. They hold the message identifier of the original message and the message identifiers of other messages (for example, in the case of a reply to a message that was itself a reply). The "In-Reply-To:" field may be used to identify the message (or messages) to which the new message is a reply, while the "References:" field may be used to identify a "thread" of conversation.
Yes, I understand that this proposed change is controversial, and isn't really blessed by the RFCs. I won't turn it on by default, but since several mutt-dev subscribers said this would be useful, I'm inclined to think there are others who would too.
If the attachment menu creates References: for multiple parents, that sounds like a bug. What does it create, exactly? How can it work?
A bag of references ;-D. Yes I agree it's a bug. I'll address it for reply too in the final patchset. Thanks Kurt!
-- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
