From: Usenet News Support (support@prodigy.net)
Date: Tue Jun 10 2003 - 15:28:07 CDT
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, John Stanley wrote:
> > The truth is that under some fairly common conditions conditions the Re is
> > going to make things work better.
>
> The truth is, under some fairly common conditions, the References header
> contains ALL of the information that the "Re: " hack contains, plus more,
> and under some fairly common conditions, relying on the "Re: " hack will
> get things completely wrong. And, the truth is, the things that will "work
> better" are things that are USENET-ignorant and have chosen to be that
> way.
I'm glad you live in a perfect workd, I don't.
>
> > I fail to see what will work better in
> > any way without it.
>
> Who the fuck keeps talking about doing without it, other than you and
> Charles? I've explained the best I know how that NOBODY is talking about
> getting rid of "Re: " -- other than you -- so you'll have to find someone
> else to help. The best I can do is repeat that there is a significant
> difference between "RFC2822 language is sufficient for Subject" and "get
> rid of Re:". If you don't understand RFC2822 language, well, find a
> dictionary, just please stop misrepresenting my position.
Let's just vote on this, I think the arguments are clean to all but one
reader, and I'm tired of arguements which are repitious restatements of
"if the world was perfect Re wouldn't be useful" interspersed with
vulgarities. If there are no better technical arguements than this it's
time to just vote.
-- bill davidsen SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center Project Leader, USENET news http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com