From: Forrest J. Cavalier III (mibsoft@epix.net)
Date: Fri Aug 13 2004 - 13:58:28 CDT
Bill Davidsen wrote in part:
> I think that we need to define followup because it will be
> really dificult to have a cogent section on References and
> In-Reply-To without that term.
Any objections to this....?
A "followup" is a message which is related, supplementary, or posted to respond
to another message. A message includes a References header if and only
if it is a followup.
The definition is certainly not circular. It matches existing use of the header on
Usenet. It closely agrees with the verb "follow up" as defined at Webster.com.
It avoids MUST/SHOULD language but still makes it clear that the References
header is always present in followups, and for no other messages.