From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Sun Mar 14 2004 - 15:03:04 CST
J.B.Moreno wrote:
> On 3/12/04 9:31 AM, Bruce Lilly at <blilly@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>>J.B.Moreno wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That's not my point of disagreement -- I really do think that the "Re: " is
>>>part of the syntax...
>>
>>Can you substantiate that in engineering terms based on RFC 822 syntax
>>(text and EBNF), which has been the basis for Usenet articles for at least
>>two decades, or based on RFC 2822 syntax (text and ABNF) which is currently
>>the basis for the Usefor draft?
>
>
> Are you asking me to point out where they defined the syntax to mean that?
> If so, they don't, at least not explicitly. If that's your question, then
> my answer is "the made a mistake, we shouldn't make the same mistake".
That still lacks substance. Moreover, it doesn't address the fact of
prior use, dating back to RFC 561. The message header field name
registry is about to become a reality, and that very strongly discourages
the same field name from being used in different protocols with
different meanings. Now if you want to go back to "Title",...
>>>Saying that the Subject is only for display, isn't true
>>
>>Please provide an example of use unrelated to display. Show how it affects
>>filing, transfer, expiration, etc. of the article.
>
>
> Filtering determines whether something is filed or not. Spam filtering
> determines whether it is transfered or not. I know that some of the
> webboards with NNTP interfaces don't expire FAQs and may determine this in
> part based upon the Subject.
And use of Subject (or Date, etc.) for any of those purposes is no
more relevant to the string "Re" than to the string "\/|4%r4" --
probably a great deal less so. You still haven't made a case that
"Re" is in any way shape or form part of the syntax or protocol.
> I'm saying that the point of a message is to be read, a message that isn't
> read might as well not have been sent. It doesn't matter if it's not read
> because it got misfiled or expired immediately or because it grabbed the
> Subject from an article 3 groups over. If a newsreader author follows our
> rules, and as a result of doing so, the messages his clients send out,
> aren't read when by ignoring our rules they would have been, then our rules
> should be ignored.
And that is affected by "Re" ... how?
> The protocol exist to deliver the content, if the content can't be delivered
> because of the protocol, then there's a problem with the protocol.
And the relevance to "Re" is... what?
>>>The "Re: " contains information -- it says that the Subject was inherited
>>>(give or take some minor changes)
>>
>>It does not contain the information that you claim that it contains:
>>Subject: Re: is an abominable hack
>
>
> What does that have to do with anything? Possibly it's blasphemous as well,
> it's there, it's used, you don't like it, tough.
The example Subject field line was *NOT* "inherited" -- it appears in an
article which is not a followup. Ergo your claim about what "Re" means
is false.
>>appearing in an article which is not a followup most certainly does *NOT*
>>"say[...] that the Subject was inherited" or anything remotely like that.
>
>
> Sure it does. It can be mistaken, but so what -- the References header can
> be mistaken as well. That just means someone or something screwed up, it
> doesn't mean that it's meaningless.
Well not to put too fine a point on it, but the guy who *assumed*
(incorrectly) that "'Re" says that the Subject was inherited" is
the someone who screwed up. An incorrect assumption isn't
"information" -- it might well be "mistaken", but that's another
matter entirely.
>>If a followup agent preparing a followup to that article presents the same
>>Subject field to the followup poster, who then places double-quote marks
>>around "Re:", any "information" in the unquoted text has been removed by
>>that followup poster.
>
>
> The poster is allowed to make changes, by putting the double-quote marks in,
> he's changed the Subject -- i.e. it's no longer the Subject as inherited
> from the previous message. Sounds like information to me.
If there are quotation marks, the Subject doesn't begin with an unquoted
instance of "Re" (quoted here for clarity). According to your theory
of "information", that means that the Subject wasn't "inherited", yet
it clearly was (it was modified slightly).
>>>and this information is used.
>>
>>So this non-existent information (really a misinterpretation) is (ab)used --
>>for what (other than display or display-related processing) you haven't been
>>able to say. And somehow this "information" gets from the followup agent to
>>some other reading agent even though the poster has elided it (which he is
>>explicitly permitted to do)? WTF?
>
>
> If he removes it, then *that* information is conveyed!!!!
But you can't tell whether it was never there or if it was removed!
> The poster can really only "remove" the information by putting in "Re: "
> when he shouldn't
If the presence of "Re" conveys some "information", and that "Re" is
removed, then presumably that "information" is removed (without
"putting in" anything).