Re: [PATCH] wip: Add forward-message-refs function.

"Kevin J. McCarthy" <[email protected]> Fri, 28 Aug 2026 10:18:18 +0800

Newsgroups	gmane.mail.mutt.devel
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 12:58:42AM -0400, Kurt Hackenberg wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 27, 2026 at 10:58 +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
>
>>This reuses the existing Mutt functions to set references, which means
>>they are like reply references: the full list.  It clears out the
>>In-Reply-To header afterwards, because I personally feel like that
>>header is a step too far for a "forward".
>
>RFC 5322 says both headers are for replies. Treating In-Reply-To: as 
>for replies, and References: as for something else, goes against that 
>RFC.
>
><https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5322/#section-3.6.4>
>
>     The "In-Reply-To:" and "References:" fields are used when
>     creating a reply to a message. They hold the message
>     identifier of the original message and the message
>     identifiers of other messages (for example, in the case of a
>     reply to a message that was itself a reply). The
>     "In-Reply-To:" field may be used to identify the message (or
>     messages) to which the new message is a reply, while the
>     "References:" field may be used to identify a "thread" of
>     conversation.

Yes, I understand that this proposed change is controversial, and isn't 
really blessed by the RFCs.  I won't turn it on by default, but since 
several mutt-dev subscribers said this would be useful, I'm inclined to 
think there are others who would too.

>If the attachment menu creates References: for multiple parents, that 
>sounds like a bug. What does it create, exactly? How can it work?

A bag of references ;-D.  Yes I agree it's a bug.  I'll address it for 
reply too in the final patchset.  Thanks Kurt!

-- 
Kevin J. McCarthy
GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C  5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA

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