From: Terje Bless (link@pobox.com)
Date: Tue Mar 05 2002 - 01:04:48 CST
Martin Djernaes <djernaes@cisco.com> wrote:
>Instead of using pseudo magic words/keys for Re: was: etc. the newsreader
>could keep an extra field in the header maintaining the original or last
>subject. If it's altering the subject with Re: it should keep the original
>subject in this alternative field. The same logic can be used for a
>previous subject (was), where the newsreader can insert the previous
>subject so others can display what the subject was.
I think that if you check the archives you'll find that a substantially
similar idea was launched during the wee beginnings of this group -- lo
these many years ago -- and was discarded for several reasons. Mostly
though, it was because the current solution, while not perfect, is the best
practical compromise under the circumstances and taking historical usage
into account.
As a data point, the newsreaders most prone to erroneously localize the
"Re: " prefix were then revealed to actually parse the subject field into
tokens, treating it as a structured field though most consider it free form
text, where the majority of user agents do the latter.