From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 01 2004 - 09:30:23 CST
In <Pine.LNX.4.53.0402271048230.13352@a.shell.peak.org> John Stanley <stanley@peak.org> writes:
> Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk):
>>But on top of that, you have to mention the exception when a Followup-To
>>header is provided, and the exception that allows a "Re: " to be inserted.
>Allows? Why do you need a special exemption to "allow" on certain string
>to be inserted when there isn't a prohibition to start with?
Because if the text says that the initial Subject of the followup SHOULD
be a copy of the precursor's Subject, then that is the same thing as
saying that it SHOULD NOT be anything else (such as "Re: original
subject").
>Seth Breidbart (sethb@panix.com):
>>> So we can specify that because that's required for interoperability with
>>> current software.
>>So is handling Re: correctly, so why do you have a problem with that?
>Because it is not true. Any reading agent that breaks because it does
>not find "Re: " at the start of the Subject content, or because it finds
>"Re: Re" ", or because it finds "Sv: " is defective. The content is
>unstructured, which makes "Re: Re: Re: Sv: Re: Re[234]: " just as valid
>as a subject as "Re: ".
No reading agent breaks because it does not find "Re: " at the start of
the Subject. Many reading agents break (at least to the extent of doing
unhelpful things) if they find "Re: Re" or "Sv: ".
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5