From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net)
Date: Sat Mar 13 2004 - 21:08:29 CST
In <200403132028.i2DKS7Q06442@panix5.panix.com>, on 03/13/2004
at 03:28 PM, Seth Breidbart <sethb@panix.com> said:
>The _meaning_ (in terms of what is permitted, SHOULD, MUST, etc.) is
>the same.
No, it is *NOT* the same, and it is unacceptable to some here. If the
meaning were the same, you would not have asked to change the wording.
The wording in RFC 2822 does not impose a requirement to do the "Re: "
kludge; the wording that you want does, ergo the meaning is different.
>I don't want wording that suggests adding "Re: " when not present is
>anti-preferred.
While others don't want wording that suggests that adding "Re: " is
reasonable, much less preferred.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)