From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/9733
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Per Persson <pp@swip.net>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: [Announce] Mine game v1.17 for Emacs
Date: 31 Jan 1997 12:33:14 +0100
Sender: pp@doc.swip.net
Message-ID: <x7g1zim64l.fsf@swip.net>
References: <qk2n2tqe1f2.fsf@iptsun2.unil.ch>,             <199701310720.CAA00587@psilocin.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <199701310936.EAA01473@psilocin.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <qk2bua6dtxg.fsf@iptsun2.unil.ch>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035149711 20190 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:35:11 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:35:11 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu>, ding@ifi.uio.no
Return-Path: <ding-request@ifi.uio.no>
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 DAA04300
	for <steve@miranova.com>; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 03:45:09 -0800
Original-Received: from mailbox.swip.net (mailbox.swip.net [193.12.122.1]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <MAA25528@ifi.uio.no> for <ding@ifi.uio.no> ; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 12:33:09 +0100
Original-Received: from oink.swip.net (workstation1.swip.net [130.244.254.1]) 
          by mailbox.swip.net (8.7.6swip/8.7.3) with SMTP 
          id MAA11471; 
          Fri, 31 Jan 1997 12:33:06 +0100 (MET)
Original-Received: by oink.swip.net (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id MAA29992; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 12:33:15 +0100
Original-To: Wes Hardaker <Wesley.Hardaker@sphys.unil.ch>
In-Reply-To: Wes Hardaker's message of 31 Jan 1997 11:23:55 +0100
Original-Lines: 19
X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.84/Emacs 19.34
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9733
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9733

Wes Hardaker <Wesley.Hardaker@sphys.unil.ch> 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.  

There's a few MUAs which uses both, one or none of those headers. I'd
go for having both added by GNUS. As everyone uses their own standard
I'd rather go for redundancy than lack of a neat feature.

--pp