Question about message id

[Derek Martin]

On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 09:25:56AM -0700, Will Yardley wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 11:33:55AM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
> > If so that feature may not be working correctly...
> 
> That is the old format for the mutt version I'm using. The new format
> looks like
> 
> <ZhQWnYQyM6iNOJfw at hostname.example.com>
> 
> Thought you were on that long thread about this when it changed a while
> back, but maybe remembering wrong.

I was--but I guess the source of my confusion is I don't actually care
what the message ID format is (as should no user), so I never bothered
to internalize it, but I vaguely (mis)remembered it had (I thought
one, but at least one) more dot-separated components.

My issue was never with the specifics of the format, but rather the
practical benefit of the changes and the spurious logic in favor of
them vs. the cost of implementing and maintaining them.

Cheers

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mutt.org/pipermail/mutt-users/attachments/20240409/70450bc4/attachment-0001.asc>