Ugly In-Reply-To?

Ugly In-Reply-To?

[Simon Josefsson]

I just noticed that my outgoing e-mails contain:

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?

Does anyone see a problem with dropping them?

/Simon

Re: Ugly In-Reply-To?

[Katsumi Yamaoka]

>>>>> In <871whsn6dz.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> Simon Josefsson wrote:

> I just noticed that my outgoing e-mails contain:

> 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?

> Does anyone see a problem with dropping them?

At least quoting tspecial characters that are within parentheses
with backslashes seems to be overkill.  I've modified the
`rfc2047-quote-special-characters-in-quoted-strings' function in
the trunk so that it skips closed parentheses.  (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.)

BTW, I'm not sure how the In-Reply-To header is actually used.
If anything, I consider it is a useless header, so I've never
been adding it to outgoing messages for years.  (Gcc'd ones have
it for verifying whether it is created correctly, though.)

Regards,

Re: Ugly In-Reply-To?

[Miles Bader]

Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@jpl.org> writes:
> BTW, I'm not sure how the In-Reply-To header is actually used.
> If anything, I consider it is a useless header, so I've never
> been adding it to outgoing messages for years.

I've always assumed that some mail clients might use In-Reply-To instead
of References for constructing thread trees (though I have no actual
evidence one way or the other).

-miles
-- 
自らを空にして、心を開く時、道は開かれる

Re: Ugly In-Reply-To?

[Reiner Steib]

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.
Is the extra quoting incorrect or only ugly?

Bye, Reiner.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: Ugly In-Reply-To?

[Katsumi Yamaoka]

>>>>> 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,

Re: Ugly In-Reply-To?

[Katsumi Yamaoka]

>>>>> In <b4m6470fc68.fsf@jpl.org> Katsumi Yamaoka wrote:

> 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:

In-Reply-To: (Foo Bar's message of "Mon, 7 May 2007 14:46:18 +0200")

(Sorry, my `message-send-mail-hook' removed this in the last message.)

> 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.

Re: Ugly In-Reply-To?

[Katsumi Yamaoka]

>>>>> In <b4mabwcdx9i.fsf@jpl.org> Katsumi Yamaoka wrote:

> In-Reply-To: (Foo Bar's message of "Mon, 7 May 2007 14:46:18 +0200")

> (Sorry, my `message-send-mail-hook' removed this in the last message.)

Oops, it has had to be:

In-Reply-To: Foo Bar's message of "Mon, 7 May 2007 14:46:18 +0200"