From: Eivind Tagseth (eivindt@multinet.no)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 13:49:29 CDT
* Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch@durham.ac.uk> [2004-05-04 17:51:33 +0100]:
> Eivind Tagseth wrote:
> >If my note doesn't cover all the nifty pro arguments well enough on the
> >other hand, then I'm sure those fighting _for_ "Re: " can write a much
> >better summary.
>
> Well, I did suggest what I thought was a better summary, but you haven't
> commented on it.
I think those on the pro side should write the pro-section, and since you're
on that side, I'm sure your's is better. I do think it is a little
unprecise though, and could use some more work. Noone actually uses
"Re: " for sorting, do they? They do the opposite, they are able to
_ignore_ "Re: " when sorting. And some clients actually use "Re: " as
an indication that the article belongs to a thread, even if the References
header is missing. This behaviour certainly feels broken to me, since
it assumes that all articles without References and a "Re: " at the beginning
of the subject have been posted by a broken agent -- that is, this behaviour
actually causes good agent's articles to be broken. Anyway, that's a
matter for USEAGE.
I'm sure you could write a version that I have no problems with, but I
guess the real question is if my version makes any difference at all for
John and Bruce...
Eivind