On June 27, 2003 at 13:10, Jerry Peek wrote:
> Earl, does yours work differently? Can we merge ours somehow?
Mine is basically the same as yours.
--ewh
Glenn Burkhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should we change [In-Reply-To]?
The entire MH-E crew is behind this change (and it was one of us who
submitted it ;-). It will make the MH-E threading code more reliable.
Note that the new format is backwards-compatible with the old spec so
there shou
On 27 June 2003 at 13:43, Earl Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
...
> I vote for the c
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 20
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 w
