From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 13:00:57 CDT
Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk):
>In doing so, it is customary to
>remove an initial "Re: " to obtain a "base subject", but we do not want to
>put user agents in the position of doing any more complex operations.
We are not putting the user agents in the position of doing anything. If
they want to avoid using the header that was created for threading, then
they made that choice, not us.
>IOW,
>we do not want to impose a mess such as is proposed in
>draft-ietf-imapext-sort-11.txt, which endeavours to cope with every
>variant of "Re" that has ever appeared anywhere.
Straw man. It sounds to me like nobody but you is talking about coping
with every variant of anything. It sounds to me like the topic of
discussion is to remove any coping. There's a specific header designed to
keep track of threading; putting arbitrary limits on an otherwise
unstructured header to do the same thing is just silly.
>(and,
>in particular, to make it possible for ordinary users to write simple ad
>hoc scripts to handle lists of articles).
Users don't need "Re: " to write simple scripts to deal with threading
articles. I know, I've done it. It isn't rocket science.
>"Good Netkeeping" issues (which I have called USEAGE for the time
>being).
Please call is "USAGE". The middle 'e' is dropped when adding the 'age'.
Or is this just a color/colour kind of thing?