From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Feb 04 2004 - 07:16:00 CST
In <87brofgwun.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>J B Moreno <planb@newsreaders.com> writes:
>> What the hell is wrong with saying that the structure of the Subject is:
>> subject-content = [ back-reference ] pure-subject CRLF
>> pure-subject = unstructured
>> back-reference = %x52.65.3A.20 ; which is a case-sensitive
>> "Re: "
>It conflicts with mail, which is why this subject came up again this time
>around. It's going to keep coming up as long as we keep introducing these
>gratuitous incompatibilities with the mail ABNF.
I agree to the extent that it should not be in the syntax (how to you
parse things like "Subject: Re: considered harmful")? The ietf-822 list
recently came to the same conclusion that is was out of place in the
syntax.
So whatever is said about it, whether in Usefor or in Useage, it needs to
be done verbally in the semantics.
However, what is written in our present draft does NOT conflict with
email. In fact, it is entirely consistent with RFC 2822 (though with a
clearer wording).
-- 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