robert wrote: > | [ so far so good (modulo the fact that i have no idea how one would > | attempt to reply to more than one message at once) ] > > If you mean "no idea how" in the sense of "using nmh", then right, nmh > doesn't allow for that possibility.
yes, that's what i meant. i confess i never think of headers other than To/Cc/Subject as being edited on a normal basis by users -- it would never occur to me to edit the In-reply-to field manually. > > | the default nmh template doesn't do it. should we care? > > Yes, we should care, and no, the template should not do it, or at least, > not without lots more support in the form of new format functions. > > The problem is that it is quite common to see things like (I take this > from a nmh-workers list message of just a day or two ago) ... > > In-reply-to: Message from Jon Steinhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, > 24 May 2006 19:48:53 > -0700.<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> oh, right. looks just like mine did, the day before yesterday. i notice that in the more recent templates, this longer version is moved to a Comment: header, which makes more sense. > or anything like it. We'd need the ability to hunt around in this > (now non-standard, but still quite common) form of In-reply-to header > and dig out the message-id part of it. out of curiousity, is it "quite common" among anyone but mh users? i.e., was that kind of verbosity in the In-reply-to header a recommended thing at some point? paul =--------------------- paul fox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (arlington, ma, where it's 68.5 degrees) _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
