Kurt Hackenberg wrote in <[email protected]>: |On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 17:31 -0400, Nathan Stratton Treadway wrote: | |>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.) | |If you want that, then why not send a reply, with the third person |added as a recipient?
That is what is done, right? And "falsely so", so to say. They "reply", and then include the "forwarded message" in the body. Some seem to have these X-Forwarded-Message-Id: then in addition, but anyhow not only (a one member) References:, but also In-Reply-To:, which feels wrong and can surely drive pedantics up the wall. (And why not say rightly so.) |If forwarded messages included In-Reply-To: and References:, then how |would they be substantially different from replies? Why have two |commands that do approximately the same thing? For example you could include that --forwarded message-- thing plus header extract plus main textual body automatically, then. --End of <[email protected]> --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)
