From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 08:36:03 CDT
Seth Breidbart wrote:
> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Bull. You are proceeding on a false premise, which has been
>>explained to you on multiple occasions. You are using this false
>>"consensus" as a smokescreen to promote your personal preferences in
>>spite of substantive objections (which you have refused to
>>addressed) raised by WG members.
>
>
> Given that any proposed text which disparages, deprecates, or
> prohibits defaulting with "Re: " will have _more_ objections than text
> which encourages or allows it (I don't support requiring it), what
> would you propose?
As "Re:" has nothing to do with the defined syntax or semantics of
the Subject field, and nothing to do with network operations, I have
proposed that there be no text about it in the syntax & semantics
document and in the network operations document. We can address the
issue in the practices document, but let's get the two Standards Track
documents in order first -- there's a lot of work that needs to be
done on those, and this bickering over an irrelevant issue is getting
us nowhere; Charles' insistence on putting his text there is obstructing
progress.