From: Frank Ellermann (nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de)
Date: Mon Jun 28 2004 - 17:23:16 CDT
Russ Allbery wrote:
> so far as I can tell you're not disagreeing with anything
> that I've said.
Quite possible, but just to be sure: Sometimes subjects can
have a structure, e.g. cmsg, or a conventional meaning like
subjects for FAQs. Some servers / gateways / clients can do
"something" with this structure or conventional meaning.
There's never a technical problem with followups if they start
with "Re: ", because Re: cmsg is no cmsg, and Re: FAQ should
not trigger filters for Subject: FAQ.
As soon as we drop "Re: ", because it's a "hack" or "useless",
we get followups bounced by gateways / "administrtive errors"
by servers / unarchived articles on Google / filters for the
FAQ (which are not meant for followups) / etc., or in other
words undesirable side-effects.
Therefore "Re: " is IMHO technically important, it's not only
an ugly hack or netiquette, it has a clear function, it says
"this is not a new thread and no special message" (in fact it
says "this is a followup", but of course there are also other
followups without "Re: ").
Bye, Frank