From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Apr 13 2004 - 04:48:41 CDT
In <Pine.LNX.4.53.0404121121440.10730@a.shell.peak.org> John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> writes:
><usenet-format@rkive.landfield.com>
> (reason: 452 Insufficient system storage)
>Henry Spencer (henry@spsystems.net):
>>The RFCs whose drafts we are working on at this moment could similarly
>>define it so
>The RFC we are working on could define a lot of things, but its been
>through last call more than once already without any desire from anyone
>to do so, so I question why the sudden interest in making a new definition
>for an unstructured header.
On the last occasion I tried to conduct an Internal Last Call (must have
been two years ago by now), the "Re: " was in the syntax of the
Subject-header and its inclusion by followup agents was mandatory. I do
not recall that you objected to it on that occasion, and I somehow don't
think you imagine that you are bound by it now.
-- 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