Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 18:25:05 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se>
To: ietf-drums <drums@CS.UTK.EDU>
Subject: Re: Does "References:" form threads?
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950816182446.21591C-100000@ester>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 15 Aug 1995, Keith Moore wrote:

> > I was only discussing a technical issue: Should a future revised
> > version of RFC822 recommend that client software for e-mail should
> > regard two messages, which are related to each other with
> > a "references" link, belong to the same thread.
> 
> It would be best if we did it this way.  If we do so, we can build
> threaded mail readers.  Otherwise, References isn't terribly useful.
> 
We agree. I hope the rest of the ietf-drums group also agrees.

> For our RFC, this might take the form of a description of how to
> manipulate References (along with In-Reply-To) when building replies.

I would prefer it if we also explicitly meantioned that "References"
can be used as a way of indicating that the two messages in some
way belong together, but I am not sure how to express this.

What then is the difference between "In-Reply-To" and "References".
One possibillity would be to define this difference in e-mail in
a way which is equivalent to current practice in Usenet News,
i.e. to say that "In-Reply-To" is recommended for personally
addressed replies and "References" for group replies. This is
however not in occurence with current practice in e-mail, where
"References" is almost never used except in messages gatewayed
from Usenet News, and where "In-Reply-To" is commonly used for
both kinds of replies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme