It would appear that on Jan 13, Madhurya Kakati did say:
> On 01/13/12 at 08:55am, Alfredo Palhares wrote:
> > Excerpts from Madhurya Kakati's message of Fri Jan 13 07:23:43 +0100 2012:
> > > Mailed just to say that all of my problems have been resolved. It was a weird
> > > bug with mutt.
> >
> > Yeah like, adding "Re:" on every fucking message and not using In-reply-to or References tag, and break my fucking threads. No offense :)
> >
> Sorry for that. How do I configure mutt to use In-reply-to instead of adding
> Re: to the subject?(if it is possible to do so.)
Pardon me for jumping in here, but if mutt isn't smart enough to
automatically use In-Reply-To: and/or References: headers on replies? Or
likes to add extra Re: (IE: Re: Re: Re:) to the subject header line?
{All of which is news to me BTW...} Then I gotta ask, "why use it?"
If it's because it runs in the console, then my real question is have you
tried alpine? It certainly does use those thread friendly Message-ID: based
reply headers and seldom {if ever} adds any redundant "Re:" tags to the
"Subject:" header line. It's also highly configurable with a comprehensive built
in help system. It can use local Linux mail spool and/or remote IMAP folders
(or even pop inboxes). It can be configured to use local sendmail or remote
SMTP servers. And it also does NNTP...
It comes with it's own editor/composer but can easily be configured to use
your choice of alternate editors (I use vim with it)...
Just a thought...
--
| --- ___
| <0> <-> Joe (theWordy) Philbrook
| ^ J(tWdy)P
| ~\___/~ <<jtwdyp@xxxxxxxx>>
