From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 09 2003 - 07:55:23 CDT
In <3EE3CCF5.8080504@Sonietta.blilly.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>Charles Lindsey wrote:
> > Subject-content = unstructured
> >
> > NOTE: The syntax of unstructured differs from that prescribed in
> > [RFC 2822] ...
>I again request that as reference is made to RFC 2822, where terms used
>in 2822 are used in this draft with a different meaning and a different
>definition (and often different semantics), that a different name be used
>to minimize confusion. In this case, something other than "unstructured";
>use "usefor-unstructured" if you like, or "frammis" -- anything that doesn't
>have a specific different meaning in RFC 2822 (or 2045, etc. where applicable).
But "unstructured" is not the only one that is different. There is also
"msg-id" and the differences arising from exclusion of the obs- syntax,
and the further differences arising from bringing back a small bit of the
obs- syntax in a couple of cases. If you adopt different names for one of
these things, then you have to do it for all of them, and that will then
lead to the necessity to duplicate other rules from RFC 2822 that would
then need to use the different versions, and so on.
The whole matter is clearly set out in section 2.4.2 (but you will need to
refer to my recent message on the USEAGE changes for section_5 to see the
latest version of 2.4.2).
> > Followup agents MUST NOT use any other string except "Re: " as a
> > back-reference, and specifically NOT a translation of "Re: " into a
> > local language, and they MUST NOT prepend a "Re: " if one is already
> > present.
>MUST NOT is too strong in both instances in the above text, since the
>issue does not meet the requirements for use of MUST NOT given in RFC
>2119 section 6. Aside from that, there are UAs that under some circumstances
>will perform other transformations on the original subject field body.
No, MUST NOT is correct because there is software around that will do the
wrong thing (or fail to do the right thing) if it is ignored. A demotion
to SHOULD could be considered. Does anyone else want that?
As for transformations unrelated to "Re: ", I think we are silent. If a
user chooses to filter his news stream through spamassassin, and that
prepends "SPAM " to suspicious headers, then I don't think we care.
-- 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