Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id KAA20547; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 10:08:28 -0400
X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 10:08:26 EDT
Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id KAA20534; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 10:08:24 -0400
Received: from augusta.math.psu.edu (barr@augusta.math.psu.edu [146.186.132.2]) by leibniz.math.psu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA26210 for <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 10:08:19 -0400
Received: from localhost (barr@localhost) by augusta.math.psu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA19019 for <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 10:08:18 -0400
Message-Id: <199507271408.KAA19019@augusta.math.psu.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.2 7/18/95
To: ietf-drums <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>
Subject: Re: Format of In-Reply-To and References 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 27 Jul 1995 10:56:17 +0200."
             <Pine.SUN.3.91.950727105135.10022C-100000@ester> 
References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950727105135.10022C-100000@ester> 
X-Face: $+9-wYg.[->94HJ{go[7Q]E!K&hUg7ZhLyCMyq_FU*ca0GazE>^/2BKLcK0bP-'%;Nn?M<m
 c~dP_j^A?M5Jw{+a7vcMu|M-mq"V4AzKq?mPMMNP\;f8J0n\-L]ODU)YMP;-pF>+am,jlSP>1K$iz@
 %'v'FEW{@](U&Ed/}>ju3Ctlr!XwJ27Q)7h2a%"`sz;j:/3EC[mXi@*X@HE1]'ddq$ZX"ePsMyTkeg
 >zdML.SV<t=R>vX1W`adGIUD
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 10:08:18 -0400
From: Dave Barr <barr@math.psu.edu>

In message <Pine.SUN.3.91.950727105135.10022C-100000@ester>, Jacob Palme writes
:
>These two header fields have the following syntax in RFC 822:
>                 /  "In-Reply-To"       ":"  *(phrase / msg-id)
>                 /  "References"        ":"  *(phrase / msg-id)
>
>I suggest that a text is added to the description of these two
>fields with the following text:
>
>   Even though "In-Reply-To" and "References" syntactically may
>   contain either a "phrase" or a "msg-id", the use of "phrase"
>   is strongly depreciated.

I would give up on re-defining In-Reply-To, and deprecate that header.

I'd like us to formally define "References" as in RFC 1036.  The majority
of MUA's which do implement it do it this way anyway, and the desire
for threading mail (and the difficulty doing so) has come up time and time
again.

--Dave