From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com)
Date: Thu Mar 07 2002 - 10:40:38 CST
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> Martin Djernaes said:
> > In section 5.4 of the draft you write about the subject field, and how to
> > modify this one when replying to a mail. I read that you want to "forbid"
> > non "latin" versions of the prefix "Re: ".
> >
> > Could you please explaing the reason for this? I didn't find (enough)
> > information about this in the archive.
>
> In theory you should be able to tell the start of a thread from a
> continuation article by looking for a References header. However, in
> practice such headers are often missing. By reserving the "Re: " prefix for
> followups, the draft provides some useful redundancy, redundancy that
> newsreader software already takes advantage of.
And most clients don't display the references header in the short form
selection list. By using Re: the user is given information which may be
useful, particularly if the client doesn't do threading (by option or
capability).
-- -bill davidsen <sugob.resu@prodigy.net> "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me