Re: References in forwarded messages

Kurt Hackenberg wrote in
 <[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?

That is what is done, right?  And "falsely so", so to say.
They "reply", and then include the "forwarded message" in the
body.  Some seem to have these X-Forwarded-Message-Id: then in
addition, but anyhow not only (a one member) References:, but also
In-Reply-To:, which feels wrong and can surely drive pedantics up
the wall.  (And why not say rightly so.)

 |If forwarded messages included In-Reply-To: and References:, then how 
 |would they be substantially different from replies? Why have two 
 |commands that do approximately the same thing?

For example you could include that --forwarded message-- thing
plus header extract plus main textual body automatically, then.

 --End of <[email protected]>

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)