From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/9732 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Wes Hardaker Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: [Announce] Mine game v1.17 for Emacs Date: 31 Jan 1997 11:23:55 +0100 Organization: Universite de Lausanne, BSP Sender: whardake@iptsun2.unil.ch Message-ID: References: , <199701310720.CAA00587@psilocin.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <199701310936.EAA01473@psilocin.gnu.ai.mit.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035149710 20189 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:35:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:35:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@ifi.uio.no Return-Path: Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by deanna.miranova.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA04223 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 02:42:55 -0800 Original-Received: from unilmta3.unil.ch (cisun29.unil.ch [130.223.27.29]) by ifi.uio.no with SMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:26:05 +0100 Original-Received: from iptsun2.unil.ch by unilmta3.unil.ch with SMTP inbound; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:25:39 +0100 Original-Received: by iptsun2.unil.ch (5.x/Unil-3.1/) id AA23995; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:23:57 +0100 Original-To: Richard Stallman X-Face: #qW^}a%m*T^{A:Cp}$R\"38+d}41-Z}uU8,r%F#c#s:~Nzp0G9](s?,K49KJ]s"*7gvRgA SrAvQc4@/}L7Qc=w{)]ACO\R{LF@S{pXfojjjGg6c;q6{~C}CxC^^&~(F]`1W)%9j/iS/ IM",B1M.?{w8ckLTYD'`|kTr\i\cgY)P4 X-Url: http://www.ece.ucdavis.edu/~hardaker In-Reply-To: Richard Stallman's message of Fri, 31 Jan 1997 04:36:21 -0500 Original-Lines: 21 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.7/XEmacs 19.14 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9732 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9732 >>>>> "RS" == Richard Stallman writes: RS> Is it desirable to make both an In-reply-to and a References RS> referring to the same message? Yes, I believe so... Well... actually I'm not possitive. I'd ask Lars or read the RFCs to be sure. I doubt it would hurt. The references header is better (more information) than the in-reply-to and I don't know if there is any mailer that uses it in the first place. I doubt it actually... Gnus will recognize it, but uses references instead if found. I suspect that all mailers that even look at the in-reply-to header will also look for the references header and use it instead. Well, in short, no... I don't think you *have* to do both. Desirable, who knows... Heck, I'm cc'ing this to the ding list because thats where more experts lie (ie, Lars???). They should be able to answer better. Wes