From: Boris 'pi' Piwinger (3.14@piology.org)
Date: Wed Apr 23 2003 - 01:16:42 CDT
"Boris 'pi' Piwinger" <3.14@logic.univie.ac.at> wrote:
I was wondering that there was no answer to my last mail.
>>> > In the following examples, please note that only "Re: " is mandated
>>> > by this standard. "was: " is a convention used by many English-
>>> > speaking posters to signal a change in subject matter. Software can
>>> > always recognize such changes from the References-header.
>>
>>And we discussed that one too, and decided it was best left as a
>>convention (note that some software does try to parse the "Re: ", which
>>is why it is useful to try and do it right.
>
>OK, could we at least suggest to use " (was: " and nothing
>else as well as removing it?
Besides that the "English-speaking" should go since it
suggests a restriction which is not true.
And we should remove the example which leaves the was part
in place.
pi