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." > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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
