On August 9, 2000 at 23:11, Denis McKeon wrote:
> >> Now, I do not know if there is an RFC documenting In-Reply-To.
> >> Pointers welcome. I've relied on my experience with it since '88/89
> >> when I first starting using email.
> >
> >RFC822.
Duh (refering to myself). Did not event think to l
> In-Reply-To: Joe Blow's message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> of
> Wed Aug 9 23:04:05 PDT 2000 to his uncle Bob.
FWIW, that's a syntax error, due to the presense of the special character
colon ":" in a phrase field. Of course, you could change the colon to a minus
'-', and
> In-Reply-To: Joe Blow's message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> of Wed Aug 9 23:04:05 PDT 2000 to his uncle Bob.
>
> which may be informative to humans, but offers more of a
> parsing challenge than information to software.
Many thanks to all who responded! It does seem like In-Reply-To is more of a
n
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Carl S. Gutekunst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Now, I do not know if there is an RFC documenting In-Reply-To.
>> Pointers welcome. I've relied on my experience with it since '88/89
>> when I first starting using email.
>
>RFC822.
>
> "In-Reply-To" ":" *(phr
> Now, I do not know if there is an RFC documenting In-Reply-To.
> Pointers welcome. I've relied on my experience with it since '88/89
> when I first starting using email.
RFC822.
"In-Reply-To" ":" *(phrase / msg-id)
"References"":" *(phrase / msg-id)
That is, t
On August 9, 2000 at 14:00, "SysAdmin, dte.net" wrote:
> I've noticed when is enabled, the 'Reply-To' address is X'ed out,
> but not the 'In-Reply-To' address. I have a chaser script that I run
> occasionally to remove ALL email addresses anyway, but I was wondering why
> doesn't take care of '
Hi all,
I've noticed when is enabled, the 'Reply-To' address is X'ed out,
but not the 'In-Reply-To' address. I have a chaser script that I run
occasionally to remove ALL email addresses anyway, but I was wondering why
doesn't take care of 'In-Reply-To'.
Many Thanks,
Manuel Alvarez
P.S. You ca
