Problem with strict_threads

[David Woodfall]

On Thursday 5 July 2018 23:17,
Erik Christiansen <dvalin at internode.on.net> put forth the proposition:
> On 05.07.18 13:39, David Woodfall wrote:
> > I've noticed now that my replies in that thread don't have a
> > In-Reply-To for some reason. When I tag one and attach it with & as
> > you said it joins fine and adds that.
> >
> > Why wouldn't mutt add that? It works fine eg in lists.
>
> It's ticked over 23:00 here, and I'm not recalling anything on the
> missing In-Reply-To headers, but if there's still poor threading after
> that's fixed, then here's what my notes say I did, back when:
>
> Debug: Maillist posts, lacking In-Reply-To or References headers, and with
>        "Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re:" pollution in the Subject, started multiple
>        threads, and mutt didn't cope:
> Diagn: :set ? strict_threads
>        strict_threads is unset
>        :set ? sort_re
>        sort_re is set
>        # Default reply_regexp is simplistic, though.
> Fix:   Added in .muttrc:
>        # Note:  Keep reply_regexp lower-case, to keep it case-insensitive.
>        #
>        set reply_regexp="^(((re(\\[[0-9]\\])?|aw|fw|fwd|\\?\\?|):)[ \t]*)+"
>
> There are even fancier regexes in the list archive, back in 2009/2010,
> but they have more ambitious agendas.
>
> Erik

I found the problem: PEBKAC

My vim mailer function that deletes Cc and Bcc lines was leaving
spaces and the In-Reply-To header line was under those so it wasn't
seen as being a header and not added...

-D

--

Linux is obsolete
  -- Andrew Tanenbaum

                                                            .--.  oo
                                                           (____)//
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'