Re: Reply to a message in the Web presentation.
On Tue 11 Feb 2020 at 07:36:49 (-0800), peter@easthope.ca wrote:
>
> * 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.
Er, there was at least one posted here within the last week:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/02/msg00189.html
That's just one that happened to still be in my inbox.
> 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.
Case-sensitivity is a harmless myth that's always being perpetuated,
it seems.
RFC 5322 §1.2.2. Syntactic Notation
This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF)
[RFC5234] notation for the formal definitions of the syntax of
messages. Characters will be specified either by a decimal value
(e.g., the value %d65 for uppercase A and %d97 for lowercase A) or by
a case-insensitive literal value enclosed in quotation marks (e.g.,
"A" for either uppercase or lowercase A).
§ 3.6.4. Identification fields
in-reply-to = "In-Reply-To:" 1*msg-id CRLF
RFC 5322 § 2.3.
NOTE:
ABNF strings are case insensitive and the character set for these
strings is US-ASCII.
Hence:
rulename = "abc"
and:
rulename = "aBc"
will match "abc", "Abc", "aBc", "abC", "ABc", "aBC", "AbC", and
"ABC".
To specify a rule that is case sensitive, specify the characters
individually.
For example:
rulename = %d97 %d98 %d99
or
rulename = %d97.98.99
will match only the string that comprises only the lowercase
characters, abc.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: