Hi, On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 10:46:03 +0200, Rocco Rutte wrote: > * Anders Helmersson wrote: >> I don't know if this was the intention. You can still tag a couple of >> messages and reply to them. The References field becomes correct, but >> the In-Reply-To does not. > > Hmm, I think since mutt supports extracting several message-ids out of > In-Reply-To, it should also support writing them. So yes, this should > be fixed.
Fine. > Hmm, 5 is still rather arbitrary. How about a replacing these magic > numbers with #define'd constants? I don't think it won't do any harm > using 10 for References and In-Reply-To. Since we have so few callers, > we could turn the trim counter into a flag which can be OR'ed with a > to-be-added flag for doing verbatim copy (see below) and use the magic > number in mutt_write_references instead. A good idea. >> The second patch removes duplicated members in the References field. >> >> The third patch employs mutt_write_references when copying the >> In-Reply-To list. > > I'm not entirely sure about these since when we copy a message, we now > do a verbatim copy without mangling the content but duplicate removal > would actually alter the content. I don't really know if it matters > much, but I think we want a flag for mutt_write_references to tell it > whether to remove duplicates or not and pass a 1 from within copy.c and > a 0 from sendlib.c. So the flag solves the handling of the duplicates as well as the limiting of refs. I agree. Regards Anders -- Anders Helmersson phone: +46-13-157 888 Spångerumsgatan 33 mobile: +46-739 874 328 SE-587 25 Linköping email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sweden PGP/GPG key: 1024D/2AD939A8
