From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Sun Feb 01 2004 - 06:13:49 CST
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <Pine.LNX.4.53.0401201845540.5984@a.shell.peak.org> John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> writes:
>
>
>>Either the header is unstructured or it is not. If it is unstructured,
>>then it is exactly correct to say that no assumption should be made about
>>its content.
>
>
>>>Others were adamant that some mention
>>>should be made, at least to the extent that "if you do this, then you
>>>SHOULD do it properly so that is can be recognized reliably".
>
>
>>There is no means to recognize structure in an unstructured header --
>>that's what "unstructured" means. There is also no need to create
>>structure where none exists: there is already a MANDATORY header provided
>>which not only tells you, by its very presence, that this article is a
>>reply, but points back specifically to what article it is a reply to. This
>>header is MANDATORY and has been for ten years.
>
>
> Yes, it might well be better to use the References header, but current,
There is simply no question of what "might well be better"; as John points
out, use of References is mandatory, and has been since RFC 850, issued
not merely ten, but *twenty* years ago.
> and very widely accepted, practice is to make use of the "Re: "
> convention, and much software out there tries to make use of it for one
> thing or another. You cannot ignore such widespread usage, both in news and
> email.
>
>
>
>>I don't think Bruce is alone in this, and if you remember the previous
>>discussions, you'd not think it, either.
>
>
> I don't know how many people are on either side of this argument, since I
> was forbidden to count. Our Chairs have vanished, and this problem cannot
> be resolved until either they return, or another Chair is appointed in
> their place.
When we last left this discussion topic, the issue revolved around whether or not
it was a protocol issue, which in turn revolved around whether or not sorting
(collating) by Subject field body content was or was not solely a display
issue (i.e. not a protocol issue). I maintained that it was solely a display
issue, and challenged anybody to come up with an example where sorting by
subject field had any use other than for display. That was many months ago, and
to date not one such example has been given. I consider that issue settled --
"Re:" is not a protocol issue, Subject is unstructured, and our draft should so
indicate.