In-Reply-To lost when going via drafts?

In-Reply-To lost when going via drafts?

[Simon Josefsson]

I sent one message to myself, and replied to it directly in the
summary buffer, and then also replied to the original message and
saved the reply to the drafts folder, entered the drafts folder and D
E'd the message and sent the reply.  The latter message doesn't
contain a In-Reply-To whereas the former does.  Is this intentional?
I recall some changes to the drafts handling recently, but I didn't
follow that thread closely.

--- foo Thu Apr 17 11:56:00 2003
+++ bar Thu Apr 17 11:56:10 2003
@@ -1,28 +1,25 @@
 Return-Path: <jas@extundo.com>
 Received: from yxa.extundo.com ([unix socket])
-       by yxa.extundo.com (Cyrus v2.1.12) with LMTP; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:55:27
+0200
+       by yxa.extundo.com (Cyrus v2.1.12) with LMTP; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:55:47
+0200
 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2
 Received: from latte.josefsson.org (yxa.extundo.com [217.13.230.178])
        (authenticated bits=0)
-       by yxa.extundo.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3H9tPXK017642
+       by yxa.extundo.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3H9tkXK017648
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK)
-       for <jas@extundo.com>; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:55:26 +0200
+       for <jas@extundo.com>; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:55:46 +0200
 To: Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com>
 Subject: Re: orig
-X-Payment: hashcash 1.2 0:030417:jas@extundo.com:c09e28912391641c
-X-Hashcash: 0:030417:jas@extundo.com:c09e28912391641c
+References: <iluznmpqwhv.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
 From: Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com>
-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:55:25 +0200
-In-Reply-To: <iluznmpqwhv.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> (Simon Josefsson's
- message of "Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:55:08 +0200")
-Message-ID: <iluu1cxqwhe.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
+X-Payment: hashcash 1.2 0:030417:jas@extundo.com:14ffd3c2f0a480fe
+X-Hashcash: 0:030417:jas@extundo.com:14ffd3c2f0a480fe
+Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:55:46 +0200
+Message-ID: <iluhe8xqwgt.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090019 (Oort Gnus v0.19) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)
-References: <iluznmpqwhv.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
 MIME-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
-X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-29.2 required=5.0
-       tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,
-             USER_AGENT_GNUS_UA
+X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-19.4 required=5.0
+       tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,REFERENCES,USER_AGENT_GNUS_UA
        autolearn=ham   version=2.50
 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp)
  
@@ -30,5 +27,5 @@
  
 > orig
  
-direct reply
+reply via drafts
  

Re: In-Reply-To lost when going via drafts?

[Reiner Steib]

On Thu, Apr 17 2003, Simon Josefsson wrote:

> I sent one message to myself, and replied to it directly in the
> summary buffer, and then also replied to the original message and
> saved the reply to the drafts folder, entered the drafts folder and D
> E'd the message and sent the reply.  The latter message doesn't
> contain a In-Reply-To whereas the former does.  Is this intentional?

IMHO, this is a bug.

> I recall some changes to the drafts handling recently, but I didn't
> follow that thread closely.

The changes were done in December or January, IIRC.  Two weeks ago
[1], I suggested to change the default of
`message-generate-headers-first' to '(references) unless somebody
implements a proper solution.

Adding In-Reply-To to `message-generate-headers-first' doesn't seem to
fix the problem you described, though.

Bye, Reiner.

[1] See <news:m3y92vlz10.fsf@quimbies.gnus.org> (and parents) or
<URL:http://news.gmane.org/onethread.php?group=gmane.emacs.gnus.general&
root=%3Cv9r88n1bh0.fsf%40marauder.physik.uni-ulm.de%3E>.
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo--- PGP key available via WWW   http://rsteib.home.pages.de/

Re: In-Reply-To lost when going via drafts?

[Jason R. Mastaler]

FWIW, I reported this bug almost two years ago, and it was never resolved.

See http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2nsnflzmib.fsf%40piglet.jia.vnet

Re: In-Reply-To lost when going via drafts?

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> writes:

> I sent one message to myself, and replied to it directly in the
> summary buffer, and then also replied to the original message and
> saved the reply to the drafts folder, entered the drafts folder and D
> E'd the message and sent the reply.  The latter message doesn't
> contain a In-Reply-To whereas the former does.  Is this intentional?

Nope.  Fixed now.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen