Re: [Mutt] #3090: Mutt removes In-Reply-To header field

[Mutt <fleas@xxxxxxxx>]

#3090: Mutt removes In-Reply-To header field

Changes (by pdmef):

  * milestone:  => 1.6

Comment:

 Replying to [comment:6 Aron Griffis]:

 > So rather than try to settle on a more correct parser, I think
 > both forms should be stored.  The original in-reply-to and
 > references should be stored in struct envelope as a char * just
 > like subject (and for that matter, just like message_id).  The
 > parsed lines can be stored alongside the strings in a LIST for
 > the sake of threading.

 That would be a bad idea (I guess) because it significantly increases
 memory use to eventually "only" fix these corner cases of totally broken
 message-ids. Since the headers of the message are part of the header cache
 that approach would also significantly increase cache file size on disk.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://dev.mutt.org/trac/ticket/3090#comment:8>