Re: References in forwarded messages

Alejandro Colomar via Mutt-dev <[email protected]> Wed, 26 Aug 2026 12:56:09 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.mail.mutt.devel
Message-ID	<ao7EwS4yA7r1Za36@devuan>

Hi Kurt,

> Date: 2026-08-25 23:44:21-0400
> From: Kurt Hackenberg <[email protected]>
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2026 at 17:31 -0400, Nathan Stratton Treadway wrote:
> 
> > So it's seems like there will be many situations where where at least
> > some of the recipients do have at least some of the referenced messages
> > already in their mailbox -- and having the forwarded message tie
> > into the existing thread could be useful to those recipients.)
> 
> If you want that, then why not send a reply, with the third person added as
> a recipient?
> 
> If forwarded messages included In-Reply-To: and References:, then how would
> they be substantially different from replies?

Why would you want to differentiate them substantially?

The main difference between a forwarded message and a reply is that the
forwarded message uses a formatting in the body that helps the reader
identify the original message being forwarded as verbatim as possible
(even including in the body some header fields of the original), with
your comments often on top of it, while a reply puts more importance on
your reply, and only quotes the original message as appropriate with '>'
or any other common characters.

But other than putting the focus on the original message (fwd) vs on
your own comments (reply), they're quite similar.

Do you check the in-reply-to header field to know whether a message is
a forward or a reply?  Most likely not; most likely you assume it from
the body, because forwarded messages clearly have some delimiter for the
original message, and you learn it from those.

> Why have two commands that do
> approximately the same thing?

Becuase they're approximately the same thing (with the obvious
differences).

Have a lovely day!
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)