> > How exactly is my MUA broken?
>
> It isn't, the user is broken. The user incorrectly decided that
> everyone would just love to see the full text of the original message
> (perhaps in case they inexplicably missed it the first time!), and that it
> needed no marking to make it clear to readers that it isn't new material.
Heh-heh, well, there's that, but there's also at least one technical gaffe
in the MUA he uses. The same gaffe is in your MUA also, Mr. Owen.
While the RFCs don't say specifically one way or the other, the general rule
is that the subject in a reply should be prepended with "Re: " (case
sensitive), not "RE: ". The latest IETF draft for message formats
(http://www.imc.org/draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt) defines the rule a bit more
explicitly, saying that the subject MAY start with "Re: ". Some versions of
Outlook and Outlook Express prepend "RE: ". While I don't worry so much
about aesthetics, I believe that past discussion in this list indicated that
many MUA's that use "RE: " also don't supply the message history information
necessary to properly organize discussion threads in the qmail mailing list
archives. As you have noticed, that makes some list subscribers quite
livid.
Corrections welcome.
---Kris Kelley
