# Highlight message if we miss some of references and in-reply-to context

**URL:** <https://forum.delta.chat/t/highlight-message-if-we-miss-some-of-references-and-in-reply-to-context/5604>\
**Category:** Feature Proposal\
**Tags:** user-interface\
**Created:** [July 31, 2026, 9:12am UTC](https://forum.delta.chat/t/highlight-message-if-we-miss-some-of-references-and-in-reply-to-context/5604 "2026-07-31T09:12:09Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ian](https://forum.delta.chat/user_avatar/forum.delta.chat/ian/32/3164_2.png) [@ian](https://forum.delta.chat/u/ian)\
**Post date:** [July 31, 2026, 9:12am UTC](https://forum.delta.chat/t/highlight-message-if-we-miss-some-of-references-and-in-reply-to-context/5604/1 "2026-07-31T09:12:09Z")

</div>

Clearly mark it on the interface when a received message `references` or is `in-reply-to` another message that our client does not know about.

One possibility is:

- draw a dim message bubble above it,
- mention the number of referenced messages missing
- format the received message as if it was a reply to this one

This would improve disambiguation and debugging federation issues at the same time.

Related:

> [@Transcript consistency by referencing message hashes in context and backfill](https://support.delta.chat/t/transcript-consistency-by-referencing-message-hashes-in-context-and-backfill/5603/1):
>
> Generate and account a content-addressable ID for each message - a cryptographic hash of the content, metadata and important headers of said message (see [DKIM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail#Signing) for inspiration). It would be useful to store it in the message ID, but that’s not a requirement as it’s implicit. In case we did, a new header could be introduced that reliably signaled how the message ID field was generated (at a minimum, as an algorithm version number, otherwise via elaborate DKIM-like headers). Always reference the ab…