Re: [tlug] Skype

[Godwin Stewart <godwin.stewart@example.com>]

On 23/12/05, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@example.com> wrote:

> Spamming sucks, of course

So does your mailer, BTW. It breaks threads.

Its In-Reply-To: header is of the form:

In-Reply-To: <message-id> (whoever's
  message of "whenever")

It should be:

In-Reply-To: <message-id>

Quoting from RFC2822:
3.6.4. Identification fields

   Though optional, every message SHOULD have a "Message-ID:" field.
   Furthermore, reply messages SHOULD have "In-Reply-To:" and
   "References:" fields as appropriate, as described below.

   The "Message-ID:" field contains a single unique message identifier.
   The "References:" and "In-Reply-To:" field each contain one or more
   unique message identifiers, optionally separated by CFWS.

   The message identifier (msg-id) is similar in syntax to an angle-addr
   construct without the internal CFWS.

message-id      =       "Message-ID:" msg-id CRLF

in-reply-to     =       "In-Reply-To:" 1*msg-id CRLF

references      =       "References:" 1*msg-id CRLF

msg-id          =       [CFWS] "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" [CFWS]


4.5.4. Obsolete identification fields

   The obsolete "In-Reply-To:" and "References:" fields differ from the
   current syntax in that they allow phrase (words or quoted strings) to
   appear.  The obsolete forms of the left and right sides of msg-id
   allow interspersed CFWS, making them syntactically identical to
   local-part and domain respectively.

obs-message-id  =       "Message-ID" *WSP ":" msg-id CRLF

obs-in-reply-to =       "In-Reply-To" *WSP ":" *(phrase / msg-id) CRLF

   For purposes of interpretation, the phrases in the "In-Reply-To:" and
   "References:" fields are ignored.

--
G. Stewart.
godwin.stewart@example.com