From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Tue May 20 2003 - 00:04:01 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <3EC501F7.5070907@Sonietta.blilly.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>
>
>>There was discussion about dropping the "Re: " hack entirely, and some
>>support for doing so during the discussion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Does anyone else support your position?
Reading comprehension problems again, Charles?
Reread the archives, including a message beginning with Re: Re: Re: Re:,
which somehow failed to instigate The End Of The World.
>>>[The alternative text is weaker, though correct usage of "Re " is still
>>>a requirement.]
>
>
>>There is no such thing as 'correct usage of "Re "'.
>
>
> Oh yes there is!
Are you sure? Do you really mean "Re "? Or "Re: "?
In any event, Subject is *unstructured*, and it's perfectly legal to have
a Subject field body which begins with "Re: " (or "QWERTYUIOP: " or
anything else), independently of any other considerations.
> The real question is how much of it we say in USEFOR and how much in
> USEAGE. The reason why I want to take a firm position in USEFOR is that
> implementors need to know whether they need to go to the trouble of
> recognizing all those strange variations which were common once, but which
> are now hardly ever seen.
Subject is *unstructured* -- nobody *needs* "to go to the trouble of ..."
> Read draft-ietf-imapext-sort-11.txt to see the sort of mess you can get
> into if you decide to cope with every variant of "Re" and "Fwd" that has
> ever been seen anywhere.
I read it ages ago. That's what the "Re: " hack and its ilk have begotten.
Best to do away with those hacks entirely.