From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Jul 24 2000 - 11:23:06 CDT
In <085a01bff328$c6152860$0a71706f@Piotr.Trzcionkowski.Siemianowice.Polska.Prywatne> "Piotr Trzcionkowski" <nntp@trzcionk.priv.pl> writes:
>Why do you still tolerate existence a back reference in subject ? In my =
>opinion it isn't needed at all. Information about fact of reply is in =
>reference field so only compatibility with old software could explain =
>existing a back reference, but it doesn't imply a new software should =
>precede subject with its. I look for archive and I didn't find any =
>discussion about this.
This was discussed a long way back. 'Re:' in Subject lines is widely used,
and useuful to readers (who don't normally see the References header -
moreover, the References header is no use for identifying a subject
change).
Undoubtedly, there is software out there that uses 'Re:' for a variety of
purposes, so we concluded that it should remain a recognised feature of
Netnews, but at least we laid down the _correct_ way to use it.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5