Re: [Crm114-general] ReaverSecondBreakfast upgrade plans

[Radoslaw S. <ast...@go...>]

Fidelis Assis wrote:
> Bill Y escreveu:
>>
>>    It doesn't sound good to me. It only gets more complicated and
>>    dangerous if you try to modify everything in sync (Message-ID,
>>    In-Reply-To and References).
>>
>> Agreed.  That's exactly why I like the idea of using comments on
>> message-ID lines, rather than munging the id itself.
>=20
> Yes, comments are a safer approach. Anyway, when I'm back from vacation=

> (starting today :-)) I'll be using/testing more deeply a version with
> References on my account. I'll report back.
>=20

I've tried it. Certain clients do not copy comments to In-Reply-To.
(Thunderbird or Sylpheed, I can't remember which one.)

>>
>> But I will still keep the X-CRM114-Cache-Id: header, because it seems
>> that many (most?) MUAs *do* show X-headers even when the "short header=
s"
>> option is turned on, and *do* include the X-headers even on a MUA-type=

>> "forward".
>=20
> Not sure if many, but offering the possibility of sending the cache-id
> as an optional arg covers MUAs that don't strictly follow the RFC.
>=20
> Ex: command <pwd> spam [<cache-id>]
>=20

More options is always good.

--=20
GPG Key id:  0xD1F10BA2
Fingerprint: 96E2 304A B9C4 949A 10A0  9105 9543 0453 D1F1 0BA2

AstralStorm