From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Jun 01 2004 - 04:29:18 CDT
In <20040531184532.GD3152@tagseth-trd.consultit.no> Eivind Tagseth <eivindt@multinet.no> writes:
>* Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> [2004-05-31 11:39:17 +0000]:
>> In <20040529003448.GB836@tagseth-trd.consultit.no> Eivind Tagseth <eivindt@multinet.no> writes:
>> >Ok, I agree, the term "recognize" is wrong. But I still don't see the
>> >damage in _guessing_ if the start of the subject is (or rather: was) a
>> Would s/recognize/detect/ help?
>No, the point is that it is not possible to tell if the subject of an
>article contains a back-reference or not (depending on the definition of
>a back-reference of course), or if "Re: " is written by the user, having a
>completely different meaning than a back-reference. The newsreader
>can only _guess_.
Ah! In that case they have found an "apparent" back-reference. How about
the following:
It would be wiser for any followup agents which detect apparent non-
standard back-references such as "Re(2): ", "Sv: ", etc. to refrain
from prepending anything further, but other attempts to mend that
problem are likely to do more harm than good.
-- 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