On June 27, 2003 at 14:36, Glenn Burkhardt wrote:

> Apparently the powers that be don't want informational messages to be part
> of the 'In-Reply-To:" fields anymore (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html).
> The obsolete fields could look like:
> In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:35:24 EDT."
>              <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> which is what nmh puts in by default.  Now only the information in the
> angle brackets is to be supplied.
> Should we change this?


I vote for the change.  My own repl.filter just includes the message-id.
I've noticed that some MUAs cannot handle the informative part and
generated a malformed msg-id in the References field they create
in a reply.


Reply via email to