From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clerew.man.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Mar 17 2004 - 08:49:27 CST
In <4056950B.7030305@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Here, what about this? Bruce, John, I'd also be interested in your
>> opinions as to how this sounds and whether you feel like this adds
>> structure to an unstructured header:
>>
>> The Subject-header SHOULD be initialized from the precursor's
>> Subject-header with any initial "Re: " removed, preceeded by the
>> literal, case-sensitive text "Re: ". ..............
>Several points:
>0. I'm assuming this is for the "practices" document (#3) as it does not
> deal with syntax or network operations.
Since Russ' text was in reply to my text intended for Chapt. 8 of USEFOR
(aka #2), and in a thread devoted to USEFOR (we have a separate thread
running for "Re" in USEAGE), then I think you should assume it was
intended for USEFOR. But Russ can correct us if that is wrong.
>1. factual basis: I'm not convinced that the first sentence of the 2nd
> paragraph is accurate. "Re: " was initially adopted from a convention
> used in printed memoranda and predated any (electronic) sorting by
> subject. As far as modern Usenet is concerned, use of "Re: " in
> Subject and References was simultaneous (RFC 850). And it actually
> *hinders* sorting.
Yes, I think that paragraph could be simplified in view of that.
>2. Unnecessary complexity. Removing "Re: " only to reinsert exactly the
> same thing seems pointless.
But quite a sensible implementation technique, as it happens.
>3. Incomplete. It doesn't address the fact that an original subject
> might begin with the characters "Re: ". Nor does it address the fact
> that some other hacks ("Fwd: ", "Antwort: ", "Sv: ", etc.) are also
> used.
It states clearly what is, or is not, to be done in those cases.
>4. Overstates some things, e.g. not prepending "Re: " "may cause confused
> presentation of messages in reading clients".
Yes, that wording could be improved.
>5. It imposes structure, as there is no provision for not prepending
> "Re: ". See also the discussion below.
It should please the people on my right. For my taste, I would insert
"possibly" in front of "preceded".
-- 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