From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Fri Jun 06 2003 - 12:09:43 CDT
Somebody using the Usenet News Support (support@prodigy.net) role
account wrote:
> I think that's what he meant
> when advocating making add-on-post depreciated.
> Did you read his message otherwise?
It is now clear that YOU did not read my message. If by "add-on-post" you
mean "the use of 'Re: ' to mark replies", and by "depreciated" you mean
"deprecated", then you're deliberately misrepresenting my position and my
statements. Even if you mean "depriciated". Stop it.
I'm sorry you cannot fathom the difference between "no MUST or MUST NOT
language concerning the structure of the Subject header" and "'Re: '
should not be used", but until you can, you should stop arguing about it.
Now, can you provide any reason that an obsolete hack needed only by
USENET-ignorant clients should require any mandate at all? Please do so,
if you can. "My reading agent is too stupid to understand the References
header so everyone else MUST structure the Subject header for me" is not
sufficient. Get a better agent, one that understands USENET format, and
that understands a MANDATORY header that has been in place for 15 years.