From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Mon Jun 28 2004 - 23:25:32 CDT
Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Quite possible, but just to be sure: Sometimes subjects can
> have a structure
No.
> or a conventional meaning
Yes.
> Some servers / gateways / clients can do
> "something" with this structure or conventional meaning.
"policy"
> 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.
There's never a technical problem with followups if they start
with "Foo: ", because Foo: cmsg is no cmsg, and Foo: FAQ should
not trigger filters for Subject: FAQ.
What's your point?
> As soon as we drop "Re: "
Who said anything about "dropping" it, whatever that is supposed
to mean? Type it in if you like. Use a program that does so for
you. But don't try to force me to do so. And if I type
Subject: Re: the note between Do and Mi
don't try to claim it is a followup if the message has no
In-reply-To or References field.
> 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.
You get those side-effects from attempting to divine structure from
an unstructured field. If it hurts, don't do it.
> it says
> "this is not a new thread and no special message" (in fact it
> says "this is a followup"
It says no such thing. Look again:
Subject: Re: the note between Do and Mi
Where does it say it's not a new thread? Where does it say it's a followup?