From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 22:05:42 CDT
Seth Breidbart wrote:
> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> wrote:
>>We've been over this
>
>
> Yes, we have. Given the number of smart people who disagree with you,
> it is clear that your claim, whether or not it's correct, is nowhere
> near "self-evident".
If you're counting yourself as "smart", you have an amusing way of
attempting to indicate it.
> As it happens, it's not even correct.
>
>
>>We've been over this -- the Subject field is defined in RFC 2822
>>as unstructured syntax with "only human-readable content"
>
>
> Nobody is proposing any content that is not human-readable.
You have chopped off the part indicating that the *semantics* of the
field is defined in part as "only human-readable content". An
insistence that non-human followup agents MUST examine that content
is clearly contrary to that definition.
>>"identifying the topic of the message".
>
>
> Nor is anybody proposing any content that disagrees with that
> characterization.
Several people are claiming that "Re:" is intended not to be
part of the description of the topic of the message, in all cases,
whether or not the poster in fact intended it to be so. Some are
insisting that "Re:" be prepended to the content describing the
topic of the message, specifically as something *other* that
part of the description of the topic of the message.
>>the Subject field was adopted from RFC 822 to replace "Title", in
>>order "fit in with existing tools as well as possible",
>
>
> So why do you continue to argue AGAINST all proposals that would help
> it to fit in with existing tools as well as possible?
You are mischaracterizing my position, possibly because you are
unable to understand it. You also evidently do not understand the
quote above from RFC 850, as you have snipped a critical part of
that quote.
>>Since that time a Standards Track message access protocol (IMAP) has
>>been widely deployed to access mail and news, where messages
>>transported by both mail and news transport mechanisms (and others)
>>are indistinguishable, necessitating common syntax and semantics.
>
>
> I can save both news articles and web pages as files; does that
> somehow necessitate common syntax for those?
Of course not, "web pages" do not use the Internet Message Format,
they use a page description language, HTML. "[S]mart people" participating
in an IETF effort should be expected to know that. And one accesses
*messages* in the Internet Message Format via IMAP, not "web pages",
as "smart people" know.
>>RFCs 822, 850, 1036, 2822, 3501, etc. are a matter of public record,
>>not a "belief".
>
>
> However, your conclusion as to what they require is only your belief.
> Quite clearly, none of them prohibits or deprecates "Re: ", so arguing
> from them to such a deprecation is clearly incorrect.
Again, you fail to comprehend the simplest of issues; the reasons for
deprecation (in a document other than the Standards Track documents that
we are supposed to be working on) is not based on the aforementioned
RFCs per se, as has been clearly explained in great detail. Again,
"smart people" ought to be able to get the facts right about what has
been presented, particularly when archives are readily available.
>> No matter how much you or others might wish "Re:" to be part of the
>>defined syntax, and no matter how many times it is claimed to be so
>>(with no supporting documentation),
>
>
> What part of "fit in with existing tools as well as possible" don't
> you understand?
I expect that I understand it far better than you do, especially as
you have failed to recognize the specific reference made in RFC 850
(you have evidently failed to do so because you have snipped it). Now
what part of "supporting documentation" don't you understand? Where
is your supporting documentation for the claim that "Re:" is part of
the defined syntax -- where is the EBNF or ABNF that so indicates?
>>the fact that "Re:" is *not* part of the defined syntax remains a
>>fact, one that is indeed self-evident to anybody who cares to read
>>the relevant RFCs.
>
>
> Repeated assertion does not constitute proof.
Indeed, but the facts are still facts and are self-evident; repeated
cries of "is not" do not constitute proof of the contrary; i.e.
absence of proof (viz. your lack of any supporting documents for
your claim that "Re:" is part of the defined syntax) does not
constitute proof of absence (of the defined syntax as referenced in
the published RFCs mentioned). As "smart people" are well aware.
#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################
#####
#####
#####
#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################