Breaking a really long thread

[Mark Walters]

Hi

On Sat, 09 Apr 2016, David Bremner <david at tethera.net> wrote:
> Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg at fifthhorseman.net> writes:
>
>> 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?
>
> Possibly. Although changing defaults is usually a cesspit of
> bikeshedding.  What would we ask, that upstream add In-Reply-To to
> message-hidden-headers?
>
> Related, showing hidden headers doesn't actually work very well:
>
>          http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=23252
>
> I thought briefly about overriding the value in notmuch-message-mode,
> perhaps by having a defcustom for notmuch-message-hidden-headers.

I think we already have this, except it is called
notmuch-mua-hidden-headers. It defaults to '("^User-Agent:").

I think it would be reasonable to add In-Reply-To to this list.

However, if I read the code correctly, currently we are changing
message-hidden-headers globally which doesn't feel the right thing to
do. Probably we should do something more like you suggest, and do the
overriding just in notmuch-message-mode.

Best wishes

Mark