Re: Ugly In-Reply-To?

[Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@jpl.org>]

>>>>> In <v9ps588nd7.fsf@marauder.physik.uni-ulm.de>
>>>>>	Reiner Steib wrote:
> On Thu, May 10 2007, Katsumi Yamaoka wrote:

>>>>>>> In <871whsn6dz.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>> In-Reply-To: <foo@bar.com>
>>> 	(Foo Bar's message of "Mon\, 7 May 2007 14\:46\:18 +0200")
>>
>>> Are the quotes '"' and backslashes '\' necessary?
> [...]
>> (This change needs to be tested widely before merging it to the
>> v5-10 branch because headers for which the `r-q-s-c-i-q-s' function
>> is used are not only In-Reply-To.)

> I'd suggest not to install it in v5-10 before Emacs 22.1 is released.

Agreed.  I was not going to do so.

> Is the extra quoting incorrect or only ugly?

I'm not quite sure of it but I think quoting some characters
within parentheses is needless though doing it is harmless.  It
is because the In-Reply-To header seems to have to be built like
To or From header because `rfc2047-header-encoding-alist' says
that it should be treated like an address header.  If so, the
place within parentheses allows any character iff it doesn't
break the parentheses matching, i.e., they all don't require
quoting, and it leads to only the issue whether it is ugly or
not.

However, there is a special example.  If the original message
has no header containing Message-IDs, 'message-make-in-reply-to'
will create the In-Reply-To header like the following:


I don't know whether we can say such one is a structured header
like To or From, but Gnus still quotes tspecial characters in it
because there is no parenthesis.  It only makes it ugly.

Regards,