Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!THINK.COM!taylor
From: taylor@THINK.COM
Newsgroups: comp.mail.mh
Subject: In-Reply-To header field
Message-ID: <8810230616.AA15417@odin.think.com>
Date: 23 Oct 88 06:16:21 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 44

A local user is complaining about the In-Reply-To fields generated by MH
-- it appears that the default in-reply-to field (as specified in the
replcomps file) causes problems for LispM's.

While I can fix his complaint (he's complaining about the '.' that
separates the ``Your message of...'' part and the msg-id part), I'm
wondering if it's legal to put the date into the In-reply-to field in
the first place.

I looked, briefly, at rfc822 (is there a later standard?) and it says
that the In-Reply-To field consists of *(phrase / msg-id) and ``phrase''
*appears* to not only not allow '.'s, but also not allow ':'s.

But, I've noticed that some other mailers also put the date into the
In-Reply-To field.

Is this legal?

Here's his objection:

<I looked into why ZMAIL is barfing on your in-reply-to field:
<
<In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 10 Oct 88 15:44:20 -0400.
<             <8810101944.AA10760@balder.think.com> 
<
<It turns out the `.' at the end is what confuses it.

And here's our replcomps file (which is unedited from the MH 6.6
distribution which we ftp'ed):

%(lit)%(formataddr %<{reply-to}%|%<{from}%|%<{sender}%|%{return-path}%>%>%>)\
%<(nonnull)%(void(width))%(putaddr To: )\n%>\
%(lit)%(formataddr{to})%(formataddr{cc})%(formataddr(me))\
%<(nonnull)%(void(width))%(putaddr cc: )\n%>\
%<{fcc}Fcc: %{fcc}\n%>\
%<{subject}Subject: Re: %{subject}\n%>\
%<{date}In-reply-to: Your message of \
%<(nodate{date})%{date}%|%(tws{date})%>.%<{message-id}
             %{message-id}%>\n%>\
--------

David
--
David Taylor
taylor@think.com, ...!think!taylor