From: Eivind Tagseth (eivindt@multinet.no)
Date: Wed Jun 16 2004 - 02:30:36 CDT
* Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> [2004-06-15 10:07:27 -0400]:
> Charles Lindsey wrote:
> > Bruce Lilly said:
> >>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.
> > Message-ID: <Hy0G3v.Hsz@clerew.man.ac.uk>
> [...]
> > 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
This is unfair, the text above comes from GNKSA. It was not changed by
Charles (unlike several other parts of the GNKSA rules), but that hardly
makes it Charles' proposal. Besides, he agreed to change this long ago,
replacing it with text saying that rather than stripping off strings
known to be used as back-references, the agent should deter from adding
yet another back-reference (i.e. "Re: ") if a non-standard back-reference
was already present.
Maybe that message never reached you?
Eivind