The following reply was made to PR mutt/1116; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Adrian Irving-Beer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: mutt/1116: Fails to thread properly without an @ in msg ID Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 11:35:15 +0100
Hi Adrian, I forwarded your Debian Bug #300327 to the mutt BTS a few days ago (http://bugs.mutt.org/1116) and there's been some discussion: Re: Cameron Simpson 2007-03-03 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 02Mar2007 13:05, Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | Part of the problem is that there's little way to extract > | message-IDs from "In-Reply-To" headers -- except looking for valid > | syntax. > > Well, you could always use a forgiving syntax that allowed "@" to > be optional for parsing purposes, something like a "<[^>]*>" regexp > instead of "<[^@>[EMAIL PROTECTED]@>]*>" (yes, I know the rRFC token stream > is more > complicated than that). > > It would let you thread in the face of this particular type of syntax > bustedness, though of course arbitrary other bustedness may not be handled. > > However, mutt should never emit a bad message-id, and so what do you put > in References: or In-Reply-To: for such a message? It's a slippery slope, > and I don't like it much. > > Maybe we're asking the wrong question. > > Christoph, where do these bogus message-ids come from? Out of curiosity, do you have an example around where these message-ids are generated? Christoph -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/
