On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 02:36:10PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 02:27:54PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 08:31:21PM +0100, Salve Håkedal wrote: > > > I'd like to have mutt put 'Sv:' instead of 'Re:' when I reply to > > > messages, but can't find how to do it. > > > > Re: is not from English, it's from Latin (and therefore local to no > > one, since it's a dead language), and if I recall correctly it is > > actually specified in the RFCs. > > Indeed: > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt > > 3.6.5. Informational fields > [...] > The "Subject:" field is the most common and contains a short string > identifying the topic of the message. When used in a reply, the > field body MAY start with the string "Re: " (from the Latin "res", > in the matter of) followed by the contents of the "Subject:" field > body of the original message. If this is done, only one instance of > the literal string "Re: " ought to be used since use of other > strings or more than one instance can lead to undesirable > consequences.
that is nice and clever but I think it would be much better to regard "re" as abbreviation of "responsum" - answer. As an abbreviation of "res" it would be highly redundant to the "subject" keyword and not explain why it is used in answers/followups only. Richard --- Name and OpenPGP keys available from pgp key servers
pgpQCHy94jlmn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
