From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Sun Mar 14 2004 - 14:43:08 CST
Seth Breidbart wrote:
> "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>In <200403120547.i2C5l8d11426@panix5.panix.com> Seth Breidbart <sethb@panix.com> writes:
>>>The meaning is the same, but the emphasis is different. Putting it
>>>that way is strong enough for me.
>>
>>No, the meaning is actually a little different (and stronger). I urge to
>>to take a look at my suggested new wording elsewhere in this thread.
>
>
> The _meaning_ (in terms of what is permitted, SHOULD, MUST, etc.) is
> the same. I don't want wording that suggests adding "Re: " when not
> present is anti-preferred.
I have no idea what "anti-preferred" is intended to mean, but it sure
sounds like a matter of "emphasis".
> How about:
... simply referring to RFC 2822.