* Michael Tatge <Michael.Tatge@xxxxxx> [2004:01:21:03:32:32+0100] scribed: > * On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 Michael D Schleif (mds@xxxxxxxxxxx) muttered: > > I have two (2) simple messages: > > > > From: Support <helpdesk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: TEST #1 > > Message-ID: 1073710002-7884@mimetools > > > > From: Support <helpdesk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: TEST #2 > > Message-ID: 1073710002-12669@mimetools > > > > > > Now, suppose that I want to link TEST #2 to TEST #1. I receive this > > error, and the link fails: > > No Message-ID: header available to link thread > > > > Clearly, each message contains a Message-ID header > > Why yes but a broken one. See http://cr.yp.to/immhf/thread.html OK. See: <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0822.txt?number=0822> <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt?number=2822> I do not know what is `822bis'; nor do I take issue with DJB's point; but, the fact remains that the following string is decidedly _absent_ from my cited RFC's: ``SHOULD be the domain name of the host on which it was created'' If my version of mutt, installed from a Debian package, uses some non-standard `patch' to facilitate <link-threads>, I apologize. Nevertheless, I still do not understand the intent behind this odd behaviour. What do you think? -- Best Regards, mds mds resource 877.596.8237 - Dare to fix things before they break . . . - Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . . --
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature