Hi Kevin, > Date: 2026-09-06 19:15:28+0800 > From: "Kevin J. McCarthy" <[email protected]> > > On Sun, Sep 06, 2026 at 10:27:51AM +0200, Alejandro Colomar via Mutt-dev > wrote: > > > Feedback is welcome on the number to display. The full list might > > > take up too much room in the headers and be awkward to remove. While > > > listing just one might look like a bug and invite endless questions. > > > I've chosen three but let me know if you think differently. > > > > I personally prefer to see the entire field. In the end, one has to > > 'unignore' the header to show it in the editor, right? > > No, this isn't the same path as viewing the message. It will show up for > anyone with $forward_references answered 'yes'.
Hmmmm. I somehow thought that unignore was also used when editing. I tried changing it now in my configuration, and I was wrong. > > If I want to see it in the editor, it doesn't > > hurt to see it entirely, and it might be interesting at some point. > > After all, vim(1) --and other editors-- can skip the field with a single > > key press, and in many cases, a long field will just be hidden at the > > right margin (and can be easily controlled). > > Mutt actually generates the header with each reference on a single line. So > each reference included will take up a single line. Mutt caps the actual > sent header to 10, so there's no point in setting the edithdr above 10. But > I think that's a lot of lines at the top of the editor. I was trying to remember that there was some limit in References, but didn't find it in RFC 5322. Thanks! > Try the patch out and test forwarding a message in a deep thread. But > change this line in the patch for sendlib.c: > > + mutt_write_references(env->references, fp, 3); > > into > > + mutt_write_references(env->references, fp, 10); > > And let me know what you think. Ok; I'll try in a moment. Thanks! > > Thanks! Cheers, Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
