From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 12:08:22 CDT
In <200307221725.h6MHPJCQ021243@jefferson.patriot.net> "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <Shmuel+gen@patriot.net> writes:
>Presumably meaning that people haven't changed the positions they
>previously took. In my case, I still believe that the agent should not
>change the subject automatically at all, but that if we are going to
>allow it to do so we should at least restrict the change to adding a "
>re:", and that only if there isn't already one.
Yes, the latter is what the wording currently in the draft says, though my
personal view is that those two "MUST"s should be demoted to "SHOULD"s
(there is nothing else stronger that SHOULD in the duties of a followup
agent, and the consequences of generating two "Re: "s, whilst likely to
cause some screwups in some user agents, are nowhere as damaging as other
things for which we would say MUST NOT.
>>Another question that needs to be asked is whether there are any
>>other technical features of the present draft that people want to
>>change.
>I assume that you mean issues that haven't already been declared
>closed?
This group has a long tradition of reopening closed-issues :-( .
Essentially, I am saying that is there anything you want done, whether
closed or not, then say so NOW. If our chairman then says "but that issue
is already closed", then Tough! But my point is that, in future when I am
trying to tidy up the document and maybe split it into #1 and #2, then it
will be even Tougher.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk 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