From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Wed Jun 16 2004 - 10:36:13 CDT
Eivind Tagseth wrote:
> * 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
That is untrue. It came from Charles' message, as quoted in the referenced
message. I have two versions of "GNKSA" documents, and neither one contains
the term "back-references" anywhere -- that term is clearly visible in Charles'
text quoted above. So it cannot have come "from GNKSA"..
> 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.
Has he? If so, then why did he respond to the earlier question by stating that
that text as written had not been withdrawn? If "he agreed to change this
long ago", then why did he propose it in the referenced message -- which was
only a couple of weeks prior to the discussion which prompted this review
(on June 6, in response to Charles' June 5 message in response to your June
4th message).
I also recall objections to use of the ill-defined "back-reference", and
specifically to "non-standard back-references".
In addition to the long-standing objection that it is an attempt to impose
structure on an unstructured field.