From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EC516DE02DD for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 11:32:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.476 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.627, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.103] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id av1qcVqfF91j for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 11:32:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [209.234.253.108]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7CC56DE02BF for ; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 11:32:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fifthhorseman.net (ool-6c3a0662.static.optonline.net [108.58.6.98]) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3DADDFED8; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 14:32:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fifthhorseman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D45AE20B12; Sat, 9 Apr 2016 08:20:47 -0300 (BRT) From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor To: David Mazieres expires 2016-07-03 PDT , Mark Walters , Eric , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: Breaking a really long thread In-Reply-To: <87wpoc7hf8.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> References: <87k2kd8r6d.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> <87wpoc7hf8.fsf@ta.scs.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+124~gbf604e9 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 07:20:47 -0400 Message-ID: <8760vrm3jk.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 18:32:58 -0000 On Tue 2016-04-05 01:28:43 -0400, David Mazieres wrote: > Arguably, I would say either both the In-Reply-To and the References > header should be hidden or neither. Otherwise, what was happening is > that I was deleting the In-Reply-To header as it was the only one I saw, > and figuring that maybe References was adjusted after the fact based on > In-Reply-To. After all, the message buffer doesn't keep track of the > parent message. > > Unless there's a reason that someone would want to alter In-Reply-To > without altering References, it doesn't make sense to show one without > the other. I think i agree with David here, but the fact is that message-hidden-headers is derived directly from emacs (in message.el), and isn't part of notmuch-emacs at all. Are these changes worth addressing upstream? --dkg