From: Frank Ellermann (nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de)
Date: Tue Jun 29 2004 - 22:57:39 CDT
Bruce Lilly wrote:
> 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.
Yes, we could use "Foo: " to invalidate the semantics of a
Subject: cmsg
> What's your point?
I don't like the "Foo: ", RfC 2822 and common practice prefer
"Re: ", that's good enough.
> But don't try to force me to do so.
Oops, as far as I'm concerned you can do with your Subject:
headers whatever you want. And live with the consequences
if your articles with Subject: cmsg have weird side-effects.
> 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.
If there is a thread about "the note between Do and Mi",
then yes, I'd claim that it belongs to this thread. And
user agents are not only free to handle it this way, it's
also the best they can do.
Very different from Subject: Foo: the note behind the bar.
> You get those side-effects from attempting to divine
> structure from an unstructured field. If it hurts, don't
> do it.
It's not my divination, it's RfC 1036 and common practice
in the case of Subject: cmsg. And yes, it hurts, but it's
not my fault.
> Subject: Re: the note between Do and Mi
> Where does it say it's not a new thread?
If there's no old thread "the note between Do and Mi", then
it's a new thread. Unlike cmsg that's no over-the-wire issue,
I could live with followups "Re: the..." and "Re: Re: the...".
It's a nice example, maybe we can use it somewhere in USEAGE.
Bye, Frank