From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Wed Jul 07 2004 - 18:51:01 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <40EB355A.60901@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>
>
>>No, in the specific case of a response to a message with Message-ID, no
>>References field, and two or more ids in an In-Reply-To field, there is no
>>provision for generating a References field.
>
>
> Exactly. That is the case in which a reply/followup has two precursors,
No, the generated response has exactly one "precursor", the one message
specifically mentioned (now, *that* massage has multiple predecessors,
but that's an entirely different matter).
>>RFC 2046 deals with message/partial MIME messages, not non-MIME messages.
>>RFC 2822 deals with non-MIME messages, not MIME message/partial messages.
>>They are two orthogonal types of messages.
>
>
> But evidently RFC 2046 was trying to cash in on the current use of
> References in Email and News (though that would be the RFC 822 version of
> References). Unfortunately, it did not get it quite right.
No, Charles, it is a completely different critter. And FYI the References
field was defined in RFC 724 (possibly earlier; RFC 680 is not online),
which predates Usenet.