From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net)
Date: Fri Feb 06 2004 - 10:44:01 CST
In <Pine.LNX.4.53.0402041002260.17694@a.shell.peak.org>, on 02/04/2004
at 10:20 AM, John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> said:
>The header is unstructured. There is no "broken" here.
Wrong. It is broken because adding the extraneous "Re:" increases the
length, potentially convertin a valid Subject into an illegal Subject.
Of course, the same could be said of adding the initial "Re:".
>The message is not damaged,
The message is damaged if a header field exceeds the maximum
permissible length.
>And clients that ignore the threading header (References) in favor
>of an unstructured header are a perfect example of "processing [is]
>wrongly done."
There we agree.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)