Re: Reply to a message in the Web presentation.
Andrei,
* From: Andrei POPESCU
* Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 21:43:11 +0200
> Without In-Reply-To a mail reader has no way to which message the reply
> belongs, so it's more important than References.
Please look at the Web view of your reply. (If your mailer linkifies
this URL, click on it. Otherwise open your browser and copy-paste
this URL.) https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/02/msg00375.html
In-reply-to and References identifiers are identical.
Both are [🔎] E1j1Dus-00018Y-T8@dalton.invalid. Correct?
A Web page isn't email but the Web presentation is consistent with
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.4 , Identification Fields. [*]
Here is an excerpt.
> The "In-Reply-To:" field will contain the contents of the
> "Message-ID:" field of the message to which this one is a reply (the
> parent message"). ...
>
> The "References:" field will contain the contents of the parent's
> "References:" field (if any) followed by the contents of the parent's
> "Message-ID:" field (if any).
The RFC also mentions the unusual case of a reply to multiple parents.
> If there is more than one parent message, then the "In-Reply-To:"
> field will contain the contents of all of the parents' "Message-ID:"
> fields.
But the paragraph for References neglects that case. ("parents'" vs.
"parent's") >8~( In debian lists, I've never noticed an instance of
multiple identifiers for the In-reply-to field. If you find one,
please post a link. (For my taste, one parent per reply is enough.
Multiple replies for multiple parents.) So, provided a reply is to
only one parent, the last identifier of References is identical to the
identifier of In-Reply-To.
OK, I'll rise to the bait. Will send a variant of this reply with the
In-Reply-To field omitted from the header. If the list software
parses References cleverly, it will thread both cases the same. =8~)
If the software requires In-Reply-To, the thread will be broken in the
variant. >8~(
Regards, ... P.
[*] Except that the mailing list has "In-reply-to" whereas the RFC
sticks to "In-Reply-To". Not too harmful.
--
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Medical_Machines
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Oberon
Tel: +1 604 670 0140 Bcc: peter at easthope. ca
Reply to: