Hi On Sat, 09 Apr 2016, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote: > Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@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