Nathan Stratton Treadway wrote in
<[email protected]>:
|On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 10:26:30AM +0100, Ian Collier via Mutt-dev wrote:
|> is no clear reason why the References header should not be used. On the
|> other hand, this doesn't benefit the recipient, because they don't have
|> the original message (or you wouldn't have needed to forward it).
|
|(For what it's worth, I'm not sure "doesn't benefit the recipient" is so
|clear-cut:
|
|The References header often references multiple messages [going back
|further in the thread than the specific one being forwarded], and the
|forwarded message might have more than one recipient [including via a
|mailing list].
|
|So it's seems like there will be many situations where where at least
|some of the recipients do have at least some of the referenced messages
|already in their mailbox -- and having the forwarded message tie
|into the existing thread could be useful to those recipients.)
btw i for one would only place one message-id in references:, what
would land in in-reply-to. The MUA i maintain has
a *forward-add-cc* flag
(Boolean) Whether senders of messages forwarded via the COMMAND
ESCAPES† ˜F†, ˜f†, ˜m†, ˜U† and ˜u† shall be added to ‘Cc:’.
because i mean that uh-oh-maybe-exaggerated touches personal
rights. Ie, very often one is asked for messaged being forwarded
elsewhere, and then simply including message-ids of people that
were not asked is .. what is it?
Anyhow for a great threader like mutt it seems to me a single ID
is enough, it surely is placed near where Alejandro wants to see
it. (This is not true for this one here, the "first level is not
joined", with a many-year-todo to fix that.)
Just my one cent.
--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)
