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" ":" *(phrase / msg-id)
> "References" ":" *(phrase / msg-id)
>
>That is, the In-Reply-To and References field contain zero or more occurances
>of a "phrase" field (plain text) or a Message ID.
>
> 4.6.2. IN-REPLY-TO
>
> The contents of this field identify previous correspon-
> dence which this message answers. Note that if message iden-
> tifiers are used in this field, they must use the msg-id
> specification format.
>
> 4.6.3. REFERENCES
>
> The contents of this field identify other correspondence
> which this message references. Note that if message identif-
> iers are used, they must use the msg-id specification format.
Note that the RFC 1036 format for a References field is approximately:
"References" ":" 1*(msg-id)
which may be easier to parse for threading. I-R-T seems to tend to not
be used, or used with a single message-ID, or used in any of many
unstructured free-text "attribution" styles:
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. More recent email and
news practices are under discussion - mailing list archives at:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/
http://www.landfield.com/usefor/
--
Denis McKeon
