From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Message-Id: <971008185020.ZM11560@candle.brasslantern.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:50:20 -0700
In-Reply-To: <6fVZIwN3cDB@faerber.muc.de>
Comments: In reply to  mail-std-list@faerber.muc.de (Claus Andre' Fa%rber)
        "Re: References definition" (Oct  8, 10:48am)
References: <971006204244.ZM2193@candle.brasslantern.com> 
	<3439A2D2.91024577@netscape.com> 
	<6fVZIwN3cDB@faerber.muc.de>
Reply-To: schaefer@nbn.com
To: mail-std-list@faerber.muc.de (Claus Andre' Fa%rber), drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: References definition
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Oct 8, 10:48am, Claus Andre' Fa%rber wrote:
> 
> When we define [MAIL]-References to match [NEWS]-References, we should  
> also:
> 
> . mark "In-Reply-To:" as obsolescent (i.e. continue generating it in
>   addition to new-style "References", handle it if it's present and
>   is different from the last reference but expect messages where it
>   is completly missing);
> 
> . introduce "See-Also:" as a replacement for the old style [MAIL]-
>   References. (No, that's not "new functionality": It's just kind of a
>   renaming from References.)

I disagree with both of those statements.  In-Reply-To should not change,
and there's no use for the See-Also references (even if we could introduce
the new header, which we can't).