Re: mutt/1116: Fails to thread properly without an @ in msg ID
The following reply was made to PR mutt/1116; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: bug-any@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: Re: mutt/1116: Fails to thread properly without an @ in msg ID
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:59:23 +0100
Part of the problem is that there's little way to extract
message-IDs from "In-Reply-To" headers -- except looking for valid
syntax.
--
Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 2007-03-02 12:45:02 +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> From: Christoph Berg <cb@xxxxxxxx>
> To: Mutt Developers <mutt-dev@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:45:02 +0100
> Subject: Re: mutt/1116: Fails to thread properly without an @ in msg ID
> Reply-To: bug-any@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> X-Spam-Level:
>
> The following reply was made to PR mutt/1116; it has been noted by GNATS.
>
> From: Christoph Berg <cb@xxxxxxxx>
> To: Cameron Simpson <cs@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: bug-any@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: mutt/1116: Fails to thread properly without an @ in msg ID
> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:48:25 +0100
>
> Re: Cameron Simpson 2007-03-02 <20070302041842.GA32254@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > That DOES NOT say that the "@" is optional. It says that the text on the
> > right of the "@" need not be a domain.
>
> Point taken, though mutt should still try to handle these properly.
>
> Christoph
> --
> cb@xxxxxxxx | http://www.df7cb.de/
>
>
>