#3090: Mutt removes In-Reply-To header field Changes (by pdmef):
* milestone: => 1.6 Comment: Replying to [comment:6 Aron Griffis]: > So rather than try to settle on a more correct parser, I think > both forms should be stored. The original in-reply-to and > references should be stored in struct envelope as a char * just > like subject (and for that matter, just like message_id). The > parsed lines can be stored alongside the strings in a LIST for > the sake of threading. That would be a bad idea (I guess) because it significantly increases memory use to eventually "only" fix these corner cases of totally broken message-ids. Since the headers of the message are part of the header cache that approach would also significantly increase cache file size on disk. -- Ticket URL: <http://dev.mutt.org/trac/ticket/3090#comment:8>
