From: Eivind Tagseth (eivindt@multinet.no)
Date: Thu Jun 03 2004 - 02:20:51 CDT
* Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> [2004-06-01 09:29:18 +0000]:
> 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]:
> >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.
Fine by me.
Eivind