*       From: Andrei POPESCU 
*       Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:43:11 +0200
> Without In-Reply-To a mail reader has no way to which message the reply 
> belongs, so it's more important than References.

Please look at the Web view of your reply.  (If your mailer linkifies 
this URL, click on it.  Otherwise open your browser and copy-paste 
this URL.)

In-reply-to and References identifiers are identical. 
Both are E1j1Dus-00018Y-T8@dalton.invalid.  Correct?

A Web page isn't email but the Web presentation is consistent with , Identification Fields. [*]
Here is an excerpt.
> The "In-Reply-To:" field will contain the contents of the
> "Message-ID:" field of the message to which this one is a reply (the
>  parent message"). ...
> The "References:" field will contain the contents of the parent's
> "References:" field (if any) followed by the contents of the parent's
> "Message-ID:" field (if any). 

The RFC also mentions the unusual case of a reply to multiple parents.
> If there is more than one parent message, then the "In-Reply-To:" 
> field will contain the contents of all of the parents' "Message-ID:" 
> fields.
But the paragraph for References neglects that case. ("parents'" vs. 
"parent's")  >8~(  In debian lists, I've never noticed an instance of 
multiple identifiers for the In-reply-to field.  If you find one, 
please post a link.  (For my taste, one parent per reply is enough.  
Multiple replies for multiple parents.) So, provided a reply is to 
only one parent, the last identifier of References is identical to the 
identifier of In-Reply-To.

OK, I'll rise to the bait.  Will send a variant of this reply with the 
In-Reply-To field omitted from the header.  If the list software 
parses References cleverly, it will thread both cases the same.  =8~)  
If the software requires In-Reply-To, the thread will be broken in the 
variant.  >8~(

Regards,                             ... P.

[*] Except that the mailing list has "In-reply-to" whereas the RFC 
sticks to "In-Reply-To".  Not too harmful.
Tel: +1 604 670 0140            Bcc: peter at easthope. ca

Reply via email to