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: Cameron Simpson <cs@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: bug-any@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: cb@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: mutt/1116: Fails to thread properly without an @ in msg ID
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 11:45:50 +1100
On 02Mar2007 13:05, Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| Part of the problem is that there's little way to extract
| message-IDs from "In-Reply-To" headers -- except looking for valid
| syntax.
Well, you could always use a forgiving syntax that allowed "@" to
be optional for parsing purposes, something like a "<[^>]*>" regexp
instead of "<[^@>]*@[^@>]*>" (yes, I know the rRFC token stream is more
complicated than that).
It would let you thread in the face of this particular type of syntax
bustedness, though of course arbitrary other bustedness may not be handled.
However, mutt should never emit a bad message-id, and so what do you put
in References: or In-Reply-To: for such a message? It's a slippery slope,
and I don't like it much.
Maybe we're asking the wrong question.
Christoph, where do these bogus message-ids come from?
--
Cameron Simpson <cs@xxxxxxxxxx> DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/
Having been erased,
The document you're seeking
Must now be retyped.
- Haiku Error Messages
http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/chal/1998/02/10chal2.html