On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 08:33:36AM -0500, Joe(theWordy)Philbrook wrote:
>
> 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?"
It *does* add In-Reply-To and References by default. It does *not* add extra "Re:"s if one is already present. (It *does*, however, add "Re:" if it has not been added yet; *all* mail programs do that.)
--
Mantas M.
