Re: Experiment #3 with multiple Reference headers

Charles Lindsey writes:
> Yes, if having two References headers turns out not to be feasible, 
> then having one References header plus some number of secondary 
> References headers with some different name (I don't think I would 
> want to use See-Also for the purpose) would be another way out.

Sounds like RFC 2822 to me. IIRC 2822 says something like this:

1. Generate a References field using the usual algorithm.
2. If the new message is a reply to multiple messages, copy their 
message-ids to the In-Reply-To field.

> But all the reports so far (not a representtive sample, to be sure) 
> indicate that no harm arises from multiple References headers (i.e. 
> they progagate, and are interpreted as well as could be hoped for).

(The software on your own machine is an exception, in that it didn't 
propagate the field.)

Arnt