From: David Barr (barr@visi.com)
Date: Wed Jun 18 2003 - 08:50:01 CDT
Bruce Lilly wrote:
> Charles Lindsey wrote:
> > In <3EED3AF3.4060102@Sonietta.blilly.com> Bruce Lilly
> > <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>
> >>Boris 'pi' Piwinger wrote:
>
> >>>I don't know if you ever used e-mail, but there Re: is used.
> >
> >
> >>Please cite any mention of "Re: " in the email RFCs (821 and 2821).
> >
> >
> > May I suggest a grep for "Re:" in the text of RFC 2822?
>
> No, you may not; 2822 is a general message format, not
> email-specific. See RFCs 821 and 2821 (Standard and Proposed
> Standard, respectively).
Um, why should we look at the SMTP spec for wisdom on standardizing the use
of Subject:? Are we that stupid?
It is perfectly appropriate and proper that we maintain compatibility with
2822. Outlawing or trying to get rid of "Re:" would be in direct opposition
to the "MAY" language of "Re:" in Subject replies in 2822:
message. When used in a reply, the field body MAY start with the
string "Re: " (from the Latin "res", in the matter of) followed by
the contents of the "Subject:" field body of the original message.
If this is done, only one instance of the literal string "Re: " ought
to be used since use of other strings or more than one instance can
lead to undesirable consequences. The "Comments:" field contains any
additional comments on the text of the body of the message. The
"Keywords:" field contains a comma-separated list of important words
and phrases that might be useful for the recipient.
Since, as you say, (but I don't agree) that 2822 is a "general message
format" (even though it explicitly referrs to email throughout except in the
title of the RFC which is a carryover historical artifact), then it's also
perfectly appropriate and proper that the USEFOR spec be more restrictive
than the general case. That is why 1036 says SHOULD. That's why the new
proposed standard should say SHOULD (at minimum). It's widely accepted,
universally performed, and perfectly understandable behavior that only a few
in this group don't seem to understand or appreciate.
--Dave