On 08.11.16 19:47, Simon Ruderich wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 10:28:46AM +0100, nfb wrote: > > Oh thank you all guys for your answers. Let me practice what i > > learnt then... this kinda seems the appropriate use case too :) > > In this case it was "problematic" for me, because I didn't notice > that you answered my mail as well, as mutt didn't show this > message as reply to my mail.
Ah, that's a disappointment. I had hoped for: On 08.11.16 23:57, Erik Christiansen wrote: > Here it was displayed as a reply to my post. If Cameron and Simon's > mutts display it under their post, then mutt is doing very well indeed. > (Convenience is maximised, and confusion is negligible - within a > thread.) But locally originated Message-Ids are not easily identified without adding a cache. And how long would you keep it? (It could be done with a procmail rule checking for "<My Name> wrote:" in the body, but that relies on the sender not fiddling with attribution.) What I've done here, to make it non-problematic for Simon, despite quoting two posts, is delete my Message-Id from the In-Reply-To header, made easy by having edit_headers set, with some header weeding. Admittedly that wouldn't have worked for my earlier triple reply. Erik
