From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Jul 05 2004 - 13:53:48 CDT
In <40E4C890.2090005@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>Charles Lindsey wrote:
>> In <40E18C3D.7000909@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>>
>>>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).
RFC 2822 makes it clear that it does not address the issue of replies that
have multiple parents. Our draft also says the same thing. It is
abundantly clear that the intent of RFC 2822 was that, within the scope it
attempted to cover, the References-header would ideally contain all its
ancestors; however, due to the non-availability of message identifiers in
some articles, it had sometimes to settle for less.
The recommendation^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsuggestion in RFC 2046 was
quite at variance with that.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5