The digest is a standard mailman 2.1 digest, which means you will get a MIME
email with multipart/mixed. The first part will be the topics listed and then
each part after that will be an individual message.
The easiest way to reply to this is to go into the individual message and open
it then reply. Most MUAs will include the right headers.
I've not messed with digests on NANOG in close to 5/6 years, but this was one
of the things I tested at the time. Mutt and Thunderbird (and K9 on android)
worked no problem.
Please be sure you post a text/plain to the list, with > for the quoted text,
relevant text trimmed, reply below and ensure your MUA inserts a In-reply-to
header. This last one is important as mailman 3 (hyperkitty) must have
references or in-reply-to to thread. mailman 2 (pipermail) does look at
subject and date and will somewhat thread them. If you lack a text/plain
version, your message will be blank in the archives and the digest. If using
GPG/PGP you want to use the depreciated "Inline" format too, as this will show
up in the archives and the digest, which will remove/truncate the extra MIME
attachments that mime uses, making your signature unverifiable.
Text/plain is a requirement of using MIME with rich text/HTML as your email
must be readable to non-HTML users. I lament many companies/developers who
should know better will make text/plain blank (Costco puts HTML in it!), or
just omit it. This makes it very difficult to read in several MUAs, mutt is
totally unreadable, Thunderbird will render the HTML to plain text which is a
nice feature. Many blind users still prefer text/plain too when using a
Braille output vs. screen reader. I do have the feeling we've gone backwards
in email technology in the last 10-15 years.
There is a SORT implementation to IMAP that is a threading algorithm on
steroids, and I wish the archives would use implement, as nanog can't control
people using broken MUAs posting to the list.
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5957>
One last thing to point out is the references and in-reply-to header were
defined in RFC822, so they have been the standard way of doing this. Only in
RFC2822 (circa 2001) were they updated. This is well established how this
should work, but blame MS for their non RFC compliant MUAs. There's no way I
am aware of to properly use internet mailing lists with these MUAs.
Apologies for the tardy reply, I've been flooded..
