[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Mail headers: advice needed.
From:       Rik Hemsley <rik () rikkus ! demon ! co ! uk>
Date:       1999-06-19 10:50:03
[Download RAW message or body]


On 18-Jun-99 Sven Radej wrote:
> [...]
> Typo: should be In-Reply-To: xxx@kde.org
Yep. I knew I'd make one somewhere ;)

> [...]
>>Anything I didn't cover ? ;)
> Ah, somone with Gnus sends you In reply to as "Richard's message..."
> 
> Wait (*thinking hardly*)
> ..+...+...........*
> Aha!
> Yes Roberto had a point (and I thought he was joking), In-Reply-To isn't a
> reference: 
> 
> In-Reply-To: original msg-id or whatever text
> References: last n original references + original msg-id
> 
> That's it. This is why Gnus has human-readable In-Reply-To. In-Reply-To isn't
> for machines, it's for people.

No, In-Reply-To is what you want it to be.

The logical thing is to provide the original message's Message-ID so that the
client can see where it links to. There's absolutely nothing preventing you
putting human-readable information within this too.

In-Reply-To: *(phrase/msgid)

So you can do this:

In-Reply-To: The message you send on the 4th of July with id <arse@burger> with
subject "How are you doing"

As long as the first Message-ID in the text is referring to the original, the
client can still use it by doing a simple regexp search for <.*@.*>

I can't see much good comes from adding human-readable information, but no bad
comes from it either if you make sure you don't stick it within a comment '()'
or quotes '""'.

Cheers,
Rik


--
KDE - Colour outside the lines  : http://www.kde.org
[[without]] - software for KDE  : http://without.netpedia.net

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]