From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 09 2003 - 08:07:14 CDT
In <1466evof82ol02ahdtbngch9h1s3uni60m@4ax.com> "Boris 'pi' Piwinger" <3.14@logic.univie.ac.at> writes:
>Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Followup agents MAY (and usually will) prepend the back-reference
>> "Re: " (which is case sensitive) to the Subject-content of the
>> precursor when preparing the followup
>I really don't see why this should not be mandatory or at
>least a SHOULD. It will do more harm if it is there
>inconsistently.
Personally I could be persuaded, but in view of a few people who are
pressing for complete removal of this feature, I thought that was the best
compromise.
>>In the USEAGE document, I propose to add the following:
>>
>> Although the addition of the back-reference "Re: " is not required,
>> it is the normal practice, and followup agents SHOULD do it.
>This does not agree with the above.
Actually, it does. Even though our draft says it is a MAY for standards
purposes, the whole point of USEAGE is that it can push strongly for
practices that are not essential for standards purposes, since it is only
an informational document setting out best/expected practice. SHOULD has
to be interpreted within USEAGE in that context, and there is wording at
the start of USEAGE to say that.
-- 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