From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Sat May 01 2004 - 14:04:26 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> So my problem with John's text is that it allowed for no distinction
> between "Re:" (which is commonly supported) and those hundreds of others
> (which are not).
OK, I'll bite -- please list two hundred (the minimum number that qualifies
as "hundreds") of commonly used alternatives to "Re:".
Or, if you prefer, retract your statement quoted above.