From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Thu Jul 01 2004 - 21:29:36 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <40E18C3D.7000909@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>
>
>>Charles Lindsey wrote:
>
>
>>>Both our draft and RFC 2822 make it clear that the References-header is to
>>>contain the msg-ids of ALL the precursors (subject to pruning if it gets
>>>excessively long). It seems that it is RFC 2046 that is out of step.
>
>
>>You are wrong -- I have specifically pointed out differences between RFC 2822
>>and usefor-draft. Under RFC 2822, the References field does *NOT* "contain the
>>msg-ids of ALL the precursors".
>
>
> No, the only situation that could lead to that is when Message-IDs are
> omitted in email messages (so you have less things available to refer to).
No Charles, you are wrong yet again. Go read RFC 2822 section 3.6.4 and consider
a response to a message with a Message-ID and two msg-ids in In-Reply-To but no
References field. Then consider a reply which has multiple "parents" (with
Message-ID fields).