From: Eivind Tagseth (eivindt@multinet.no)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 13:37:37 CDT
* Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk> [2004-05-04 17:55:51 +0100]:
> >First, that is not true; he has 4 lines explaining why adding "Re: "
> >may seem like a good idea, not just 3 lines. Second, your version is
> >slanted the other way; it obscures the fact that "Re: " is broken.
>
> But this WG can't come to agreement about whether "Re: " is 'broken', so
> the text shouldn't mention that, should it?
I wasn't trying to say that "Re: " was broken, just that using "Re: "
to "guess" things that are better found out using other headers is
broken. I'm sure it could be expressed more clearly.
Eivind