From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Tue Mar 02 2004 - 18:38:42 CST
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> The IMAP proposal is trying to imply considerably more structure in the
> Subject-header that any of us in this discussion is comfortable with.
No, the IMAP extension draft merely notes that *other* software
seeks to imply structure, and that those wishing to sort by Subject
field content consequently need to go to absurd lengths in an attempt
(which will ultimately fail for some cases) to remove the superfluous
cruft.
> It
> is the thin end of a nasty wedge, and I want no part of it.
The thin edge was the "Re:" in RFC 850, widened to include "cmsg"
in RFC 1036, and leading from there to all sorts of cruft. And
you apparently want to retain it.
> But we live in an imperfect world, and so we will have to tolerate a
> single "Re: " for some considerable time into the future because it is not
> going to go away.
Nobody is proposing to forbid use of "Re: ", as has been
pointed out to you countless times.
> For IMAP to be pulling in exactly the opposite direction
> is a great pity
IMAP isn't doing what you claim.
> I am sure Bruce and John Stanley could make
> a far better job of persuading IMAP to back off than I could.
The only thing wrong with the IMAP extension draft that I can see
is perhaps a few instances of incorrect use of the term "threading"
to refer to collating (and you can rest assured that the appropriate
parties will receive a comment about that).