From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Tue Jun 15 2004 - 09:07:27 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> Bruce Lilly said:
>
>>Charles Lindsey wrote:
>>
>>>In <20040604072338.GP7879@tagseth-trd.consultit.no> Eivind Tagseth
>>><eivindt@multinet.no> writes:
>>
>>>>If the result is a discussion of the harmfulness of "Re: ", and one
>>>>participant thinks he's debating the harmfulness of "Re: " while the
>>>>other thinks the discussion is about "Sv: " then the confusion will
>>>>be
>>>>seen by other readers as well. I guess this is something that could
>>>>be mentioned in USEAGE?
>>>
>>>
>>>But I don't think it could ever happen. Not unless some reading
>>>agents
>>>tries to translate the Subject into the local language.
>>
>>No, there is another issue; you have specifically proposed text which
>>would
>>permit followup agents to *change* Subject field content, i.e. to
>>change
>>"Sv: " to "Re: ". Are you now withdrawing that proposal?
>
>
> I am withdrawing nothing because I have proposed nothing.
------------------------------
> To: usenet-format@landfield.com
> Newsgroups: local.usefor
> From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
> Subject: Back-references and USEAGE
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Message-ID: <Hy0G3v.Hsz@clerew.man.ac.uk>
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.2 (NOV)
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 11:33:31 GMT
[...]
> Followup agents MAY remove strings that are known to be used
> erroneously as back-references (such as "Re(2): ", "Re: Re: ", "Re:",
> "RE: ", or "Sv: ") from the Subject-content when composing the
> subject of a followup, and add a correct back-reference in front of
> the result.
------------------------------
QED