<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

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/
 >  
 > 
 >