Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id OAA01298; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 14:45:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Sun, 16 Nov 1997 14:42:25 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id OAA01187; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 14:42:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ester.dsv.su.se (ester.dsv.su.se [130.237.161.10]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id OAA01174; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 14:42:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from [130.237.150.138] (jph1.dsv.su.se [130.237.150.138]) by ester.dsv.su.se (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id UAA00375 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:42:15 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3464CA6C.4E914E3@netscape.com> References: <6hTs-VGHw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <971108073725.ZM1859@candle.brasslantern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:12:57 +0100 To: drums@cs.utk.edu From: Jacob Palme Subject: Deprecating In-Reply-To??? At 12.24 -0800 97-11-08, Jamie Zawinski wrote: > I would like to see In-Reply-To deprecated: instruct implementors to > never generate it, but to use References instead; and provide > instruction on a heuristic that implementors should use to interpret > In-Reply-To when it is present. One reason against deprecating In-Reply-To: Only In-Reply-To will tell you which message a new message is a direct reply to. With "References: A B C" you do not know whether the current message is a reply to A, B and C, or a reply to B and C, which are direct or indirect replies to A, or a reply to only C, which is a direct or indirect reply to A. With "In-Reply-To: A B C" you know that the current message is a direct reply to A, B and C. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacob Palme (Stockholm University and KTH) for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme