From: Usenet News Support (support@deathstar.prodigy.com)
Date: Wed Mar 17 2004 - 15:57:41 CST
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <200403120547.i2C5l8d11426@panix5.panix.com>, on 03/12/2004
> at 12:47 AM, Seth Breidbart <sethb@panix.com> said:
>
> >I would prefer (if the wording were fixed)
>
> > SHOULD by default take the Subject from the precursor with "Re: "
> > prepended if none present, but MAY refrain from prepending it.
>
> And I would prefer
>
> SHOULD by default take the Subject from the precursor, but MAY
> prepend
> a single "Re:" is none present. However, that prepending is
> deprecated
> and may be prohibited in a future RFC.
That last sentence strikes me as highly unlikely. I can't think of a
reason why we would EVER define the Subject as "unstructured, but may not
contain the subject of a previous article with "Re:" prepended."
I think saying it's depreciated is enough, perhaps too much, but unless
the Subject becomes rigidly structured Re: will certainly be allowed in
the future because it's current practice.
-- bill davidsen SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center Project Leader, USENET news http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com Please send usenet-related mail to news-support@prodigy.net