From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Sun Aug 01 2004 - 15:42:15 CDT
Seth Breidbart wrote:
> In the typical example we're looking at (multi-part FAQs),
> we seem to agree that they should, the issue is how to handle the
> wording.
Let's go back to the original definitions of the use of the In-Reply-To
and References header fields (RFC 724):
b. In-Reply-To:
The contents of this field identify previous correspondence
which this message answers. If message identifiers are used
in this field, they should be enclosed in angle brackets (<>).
c. References:
The contents of this field identify other correspondence which
this message references. If message identifiers are used,
they should be enclosed in angle brackets (<>).
"other correspondence" is sufficiently broad to cover multi-part FAQs,
etc. Successors to RFC 724 haven't appreciably changed those
definitions; RFC 2822 is a bit more explicit than its predecessors.
In addition, RFC 2046 suggests use for massage/partial. The combination
of "[RFC2822]" and "[RFC2046]" should suffice for wording.