Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday, November 26, 2002, tracer wrote... As the foreign student found when taking a trip to the UK to improve his English ... and the first thing he saw when exiting the train station was HAIR pronounced SUCCESS ... and promptly gave up *ever* trying to understand the English language like a native of this crazy island lol grins and apparently American's spell Cheese 'KRAFT'... ;) So it's no real wonder people are always confused ;) Other people know that Kraft isnt cheese.. Like French isnt French mustard..(g). seems to be a matter of taste Yes, there is nothing quite like a good English cheese ;) Sorry justt back from hospital as a pickup tried to drive me off the road and while I cannot remember what happened I am in better condition then my bike or the car from what I hear. Car took a runner... Anyway trying to work my way trhough the mail... Ewww... sorry to hear that. Hope you recover quickly, and get back to full health. - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Fingerprint: 676A 1701 665B E343 E393 B8D2 2B83 E814 F8FD 1F73 iQA/AwUBPeRJAyuD6BT4/R9zEQIT9QCeKcJqAYCMbUfocGXmuEPccdr2HpgAnj6E cYYIl8d4RbvdWC62nQNxeYUf =PyeF -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
Hello Carsten Thönges, On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:07:02 +0100 GMT your local time, which was Friday, November 22, 2002, 8:07:02 PM (GMT+0700) my local time, Carsten Thönges wrote: * Thomas Fernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon wrote: In a recent discussion with a friend I was _told_ ;) that 'Re:' used in the subject line of an email was an abbreviation for 'Reply' Anyhow, after thinking about it, I can understand that using Re: in a *new message* to mean 'Regarding' may be confounding to the recipient of it as it may be mistaken to mean a 'Reply', but I am still uncertain whether there is an actual proper or accepted usage of 'Re:' in email messages. Re: stands for Reply. No. As the RFC says it means res. it stands as far as I know for 'reference'... -- Best regards, tracer Using theBAT 1.60q mail to : [EMAIL PROTECTED] C.C.S. Associates FAX (USA): (208) 460-3753 pgp 6.5.3 : 0x909D9B10 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
Hello Jonathan Angliss, On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:49:18 -0600 GMT your local time, which was Saturday, November 23, 2002, 2:49:18 AM (GMT+0700) my local time, Jonathan Angliss wrote: On Friday, November 22, 2002, Barry2 wrote... As the foreign student found when taking a trip to the UK to improve his English ... and the first thing he saw when exiting the train station was HAIR pronounced SUCCESS ... and promptly gave up *ever* trying to understand the English language like a native of this crazy island lol grins and apparently American's spell Cheese 'KRAFT'... ;) So it's no real wonder people are always confused ;) Other people know that Kraft isnt cheese.. Like French isnt French mustard..(g). seems to be a matter of taste Sorry justt back from hospital as a pickup tried to drive me off the road and while I cannot remember what happened I am in better condition then my bike or the car from what I hear. Car took a runner... Anyway trying to work my way trhough the mail... -- Best regards, tracer Using theBAT 1.60q mail to : [EMAIL PROTECTED] C.C.S. Associates FAX (USA): (208) 460-3753 pgp 6.5.3 : 0x909D9B10 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
Hello Thomas! 1: Shavian is the adjective of Shaw; it is used specifically to name an alphabet G.B. Shaw advised for the English language. 2: ghoti is - as was, despite a typo by me, correctly identified - fish, the prime example of Shaw's why the English spelling needs a reform. gh from tough, o from women, ti from nation. -- Dierk Haasis The Bat 1.62/Beta6 on Windows XP 5.1 2600Service Pack 1 Wenn Ärger im Menschen ist, so macht er selten das Klügste, sondern gewöhnlich das Dümmste. (Jeremias Gotthelf) Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
Hello Thomas! On Friday, November 22, 2002 at 6:19:31 AM you wrote: The author's assessment that res is a Latin expression meaning in the matter of is wrong, res is just a female noun meaning thing or matter. Whether Re: stands for res (in which case I wonder why we exchange the last s with a colon) or for Reply: is anybody's guess. I would say the latter, in the sense of: I am replying to your mail with a subject of: [followed be the original subject]. Yes, res means literally a thing. From your clear statement in this paragraph I am sure you are a Latin scholar with deep historic knowledge, so forgive my following correction. Res also stands for being or phenomenon; the term republic stems from the Latin expression res publica meaning literally something concerning all people (although those people actually were citizens, therefore not at all all people). For a very long time Latin has been the language of the literate people - they spoke it deep into the Middle Ages, sometimes even up to modern times, and they wrote in it. In *lettres* they used the used the ablative re to show right at the beginning what the following pamphlet was about. Thus it came into use in the sense of concerning, regarding. It is pure coincidence that the prefix re- in the English word reply (borrowed from Latin) is spelled the same. Actually the term used by RITLabs Subject is a tell-tale sign for the original meaning of re: being a translation of res. Even a most basic Latin dictionary like *Langenscheidts Taschenwörterbuch Lateinisch* gives a lot of meanings for res including the original Schatz, Besitz (treasure, property, possession). Thank you for your time. -- Dierk Haasis The Bat 1.62/Beta6 on Windows XP 5.1 2600Service Pack 1 When you lose, don't lose the lesson. Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
* Thomas Fernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon wrote: In a recent discussion with a friend I was _told_ ;) that 'Re:' used in the subject line of an email was an abbreviation for 'Reply' Anyhow, after thinking about it, I can understand that using Re: in a *new message* to mean 'Regarding' may be confounding to the recipient of it as it may be mistaken to mean a 'Reply', but I am still uncertain whether there is an actual proper or accepted usage of 'Re:' in email messages. Re: stands for Reply. No. As the RFC says it means res. Let's take a look at the Usenet. A subject of an answer to a Usenet article starts with Re: but it is *not* called a reply but a *followup. reply= answer to an E-Mails = uses Re: followup = answer to a Usenet article = uses Re: = Re: != Reply q.e.d. ;) And is one acceptable and the other unacceptable? It is acceptable (and quite common and sensible, but not absolutely necessary) to add Re: to the beginning of a subject line when replying. It is not acceptable in other cases. ACK. -- Best regards, Carsten Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 'Lo Thomas, On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:19:31 +0700 your time, you said: but I am still uncertain whether there is an actual proper or accepted usage of 'Re:' in email messages. TF Re: stands for Reply. Is that your assessment in relation to TB!? Or are you suggesting that your answer is definitive? I looked up RFC2822... TF This is a misuqoting. Here is the a more complete version: Not at all. It was selective quoting. [...8...] TF RFC2822 therefore states that the Re: may be used when *in a reply*. Yes, of course, but stating that Re: MAY be used *in a reply* doesn't necessarily define Re:, and that is probably why there was further clarification by defining 'Re:' as, from the Latin res, in the matter of. Even if the author's interpretation of the Latin 'res' is proven to be inaccurate, as you believe, it stands that the sense being attributed to Re: in the RFC remains. And as I read it, the sense is, in the matter of, or IOW, 'regarding'. However, I am not saying that this is the correct, accepted, or common usage, as that is what I was attempting to establish. [...8...] TF TB and all other (RFC-abiding) clients use Re: in replies. I don't dispute that TB! and other clients use Re: in replies, but I don't believe that the use of Re: is clearly defined in the RFC to mean Reply! Rather, it seems to me at least that the RFC is stating that Re: is an optional string that can be used *in a reply* _to mean_ in the matter of. TF Note that the little word may means that it is perfectly OK to just TF repeat the original subject without adding Re: in the reply. Yes, well I interpreted the Upper Case word 'MAY' as in RFC2119. And yes, as the use of the string Re: is optional it would of course be perfectly OK to leave it out of the Subject: field in replies. The absence of 'Re:' then in a reply Subject line would seem to indicate that the presence of 'Re:' wasn't necessary to indicate that a message was a reply. Therefore, adding 'Re:' to the subject line of a message must surely only indirectly signal that a message is a reply by the usage of Re: in the sense of in the matter of, or regarding? It's use in this sense would mean 'regarding' but it would be indication of a reply? Does Re: mean 'Regarding' or 'Reply' when used in the Subject field? TF It means Reply. I'm not altogether convinced, and please don't take that as a personal remark as that isn't what is intended. However, I do accept that in clients like TB! the use of Re: means 'Reply'. - -- Slán, Simon @ theycallmesimon.co.uk ** PGP Key: http://pgp.theycallmesimon.co.uk/ Faffing about with TB! v1.61 on W2K SP3 #1628. Am Qed Swirly Sour ¶ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Privacy is freedom. Protect your privacy with PGP! Comment: KeyID: 0x5C7E8966 Comment: Fingerprint: 851C F927 0296 FF1C 70A2 474F CB6E 6FFE 5C7E 8966 iQA/AwUBPd4w1Mtub/5cfolmEQLMmACeOF+Bjc3SdlS7ZuhZbLLDAqH7QcsAn0xj WEgwim/Umkrqv/mpl/HoBM1g =a4xq -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
Hello Simon! On Friday, November 22, 2002 at 2:27:31 PM you wrote: I'm not altogether convinced, and please don't take that as a personal remark as that isn't what is intended. However, I do accept that in clients like TB! the use of Re: means 'Reply'. Thought my research presented here cleared the matter ... If not I gladly post it again. -- Dierk Haasis The Bat 1.62/Beta6 on Windows XP 5.1 2600Service Pack 1 Be contend with what you get, and what you get will be contend with you. (Derek Leveret) Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 'Lo Dierk, On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:38:37 +0100 your time, you said: I'm not altogether convinced, and please don't take that as a personal remark as that isn't what is intended. However, I do accept that in clients like TB! the use of Re: means 'Reply'. DH Thought my research presented here cleared the matter ... If not I DH gladly post it again. ??? I must have missed your reply Dierk ??? Sorry. Yes, can you post it again please? - -- Slán, Simon @ theycallmesimon.co.uk ** PGP Key: http://pgp.theycallmesimon.co.uk/ Faffing about with TB! v1.61 on W2K SP3 #2532. Qua Rod Less I'm Wry ¶ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Privacy is freedom. Protect your privacy with PGP! Comment: KeyID: 0x5C7E8966 Comment: Fingerprint: 851C F927 0296 FF1C 70A2 474F CB6E 6FFE 5C7E 8966 iQA/AwUBPd41Ystub/5cfolmEQJjaACg7xtqiPiDk2Y0Jf6mZWHBWukGhG4AnRHk SN7HbSC0d75Xm+cRFAV44mQC =f+WL -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 'Lo DG, On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:06:08 -0500 your time, you said: DRS I was always of the belief that RE: in correspondence indicated DRS reference. I am probably wrong but when I send a memo or business DRS correspondence utilizing RE: it indicates that I am referencing a topic DRS or past incident Yes, I think you are correct, and 're' used to mean 'in reference to' is obviously correct when used formally to reference a matter/topic or past incident. When used informally though I think it represents 'regarding', or 'in the matter of' - from res -, or even of course signifying 'concerning', etc.Nonetheless,they still all carry the same sense of 'concerning/regarding/with regard to a previous matter/subject/event', so interpreting Re: as 'reply' does not seem to be accurate, even if it is now widely recognised as such. - -- Slán, Simon @ theycallmesimon.co.uk ** PGP Key: http://pgp.theycallmesimon.co.uk/ Faffing about with TB! v1.61 on W2K SP3 #12. A Qed I Loss Rum Wry ¶ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Privacy is freedom. Protect your privacy with PGP! Comment: KeyID: 0x5C7E8966 Comment: Fingerprint: 851C F927 0296 FF1C 70A2 474F CB6E 6FFE 5C7E 8966 iQA/AwUBPd5E+8tub/5cfolmEQLuZQCfdso1yNLt+F3Xg7YEX+AYMOcrzXIAoKdu MAv/hbWAJrIAVLsvF3aF4Sul =vq2O -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
Hello Simon, On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:27:31 + GMT (22/11/02, 20:27 +0700 GMT), Simon wrote: The absence of 'Re:' then in a reply Subject line would seem to indicate that the presence of 'Re:' wasn't necessary to indicate that a message was a reply. Therefore, adding 'Re:' to the subject line of a message must surely only indirectly signal that a message is a reply by the usage of Re: in the sense of in the matter of, or regarding? It's use in this sense would mean 'regarding' but it would be indication of a reply? I would think this interpretation is valid. Whether I say Re: means I am replying to: or This is a message regarding your message with the subject: has for me about the same meaning. Does Re: mean 'Regarding' or 'Reply' when used in the Subject field? TF It means Reply. I'm not altogether convinced, and please don't take that as a personal remark as that isn't what is intended. However, I do accept that in clients like TB! the use of Re: means 'Reply'. The way I read the RFC, the abbreviation is only to be used in replies. I think that is the whole point. @Carsten: RFC2822 is about Email (Quote: This standard specifies a syntax for text messages that are sent between computer users, within the framework of electronic mail messages.) and it does not say anything about the usage of Re: in usenet, which may well be different. @Dierk: Yes, I did study Latin, but only for 4 years, so your additional clarification is well appreciated. @Gerard: Yes, this is valid only if you use English. I believe the RFC's (which stipulate those words and abbreviations to be in English) should be still applicable in other languages, but if you use a German version of OE (the icon of RFC-compatibility), Re: will be replaced by AW:, which stands for Antwort = Reply. Treat this as an anecdote rather than a proof, if you will. ;-) @DG Raftery: I also use the abbreviation Re: meaning Regarding in office memos. It used to be done even in business letters with the same meaning as Subject in email headers. However, I would never use Re: in in carbon-based business contexts as meaning Reply. It is a different environment. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta7 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, November 22, 2002, Simon wrote... DRS I was always of the belief that RE: in correspondence indicated DRS reference. I am probably wrong but when I send a memo or DRS business correspondence utilizing RE: it indicates that I am DRS referencing a topic or past incident Yes, I think you are correct, and 're' used to mean 'in reference to' is obviously correct when used formally to reference a matter/topic or past incident. When used informally though I think it represents 'regarding', or 'in the matter of' - from res -, or even of course signifying 'concerning', etc. Nonetheless, they still all carry the same sense of 'concerning/regarding/with regard to a previous matter/subject/event', so interpreting Re: as 'reply' does not seem to be accurate, even if it is now widely recognised as such. Take a look at letter formatting, as stated in the RFCs, an Re: in the body means in reference to, which is normally how a business (or general professional) letter is written out. As for it appearing in the subject, it could see mean 'regarding' even when in the context of a reply, or a new message. A reply is still regarding the same subject, otherwise the subject gets changed. You end up seeing a thread being built as such: Original - - Regarding: Original - Regarding: Original - New (was regarding: original). I think in the case of replies, RE: can be used interchangeably as 'Regarding' or 'Reply To'. As for starting new emails, I guess it is up to personal interpretation of wordings, and syntax. That's my personal view anyway ;) - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 6.5.8ckt iQA/AwUBPd5WwiuD6BT4/R9zEQIn3gCfbwBVNmMKjZq8qA4BasaYZsqO4qMAoIbV ss06IDY0sJUTpb1XFqp9plkR =XV80 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
Hello DG, On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, at 11:33:26 [GMT -0500] (which was 11:33:26 AM in NY, USA) DG Raftery Sr. wrote: Again, and I'm sure this subject will hit the dead topic instruction soon, I would not consider Re: being utilized in a business correspondence nor memo as Regarding. My reasoning? re·gard·ing, v. tr. To take into account; consider. Regarding is not a verb; it's a preposition. As a preposition, regarding means in relation to or referencing. As you see, the term 'regarding' and 'referencing' are synonymous. I'm not arguing with you but rather proving you indirectly correct :) However, as Dierk alluded to 'Re' is a preposition of it's own. IOW, it is not an abbreviation--it stands alone. I think many people confuse it for an abbreviation simply because many people confuse uses of the colon. The colon in this case is merely a break line of sorts between the preposition and the phrase, sentence, or term following it. It just makes the whole line more complete. Why did I bother writing this at all? Just to say that I think you are all very much correct. Even Thomas who is closest to being mistaken. While 'Re:' is certainly not an abbreviation for the word 'reply', Thomas's idea of 'in reply to' certainly does have direct correlation to 'in reference to' which correlates to 'in regards to' which is linked to 're'. -- Best regards, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.stamp-co.com The Bat! v.1.62/Beta1 Windows XP build 2600 AMD Athlon 1Ghz 1.0 Gb RAM Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
Hello Simon! On Friday, November 22, 2002 at 2:47:14 PM you wrote: ??? I must have missed your reply Dierk ??? Sorry. Yes, can you post it again please? Yes, res means literally a thing. From your clear statement in this paragraph I am sure you are a Latin scholar with deep historic knowledge, so forgive my following correction. Res also stands for being or phenomenon; the term republic stems from the Latin expression res publica meaning literally something concerning all people (although those people actually were citizens, therefore not at all all people). For a very long time Latin has been the language of the literate people - they spoke it deep into the Middle Ages, sometimes even up to modern times, and they wrote in it. In *lettres* they used the used the ablative re to show right at the beginning what the following pamphlet was about. Thus it came into use in the sense of concerning, regarding. It is pure coincidence that the prefix re- in the English word reply (borrowed from Latin) is spelled the same. Actually the term used by RITLabs Subject is a tell-tale sign for the original meaning of re: being a translation of res. Even a most basic Latin dictionary like *Langenscheidts Taschenwörterbuch Lateinisch* gives a lot of meanings for res including the original Schatz, Besitz (treasure, property, possession). Thank you for your time. ((This is a re-post of my answer to a message by Thomas Fernandez, not being altered.)) -- Dierk Haasis The Bat 1.62/Beta6 on Windows XP 5.1 2600Service Pack 1 You can't talk to a man with a shotgun in his hand. (Carole King) Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
Hello Simon, Friday, November 22, 2002, 1:57:04 AM, you wrote: S -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- S Hash: SHA1 S 'Lo Chiropter Operators, S In a recent discussion with a friend I was _told_ ;) that 'Re:' used in the S subject line of an email was an abbreviation for 'Reply' and _not_ S 'Regarding', and that Re: _shouldn't ever_ be used in the sense of S 'Regarding' when used in email message Subject fields. The reason I was S given was that using 'Regarding', whether in abbreviated form or not, in the S 'Subject:' field, was tautological. Although I can see the logic there I S didn't think that was a good enough reason in itself. This one certainly opened up a can of worms here lol Perhaps the confusion can all be explained in the very flexibility of the English Language that gives it such versatility and also the source of the greatest problems ?? To say that Re: can only stand for *one* thing is just an invalid argument - there can be as many different interpretations of the abbreviation Re: as there are words beginning with Re... and all of them will be valid within the context of use. As the foreign student found when taking a trip to the UK to improve his English ... and the first thing he saw when exiting the train station was HAIR pronounced SUCCESS ... and promptly gave up *ever* trying to understand the English language like a native of this crazy island lol -- Best regards, Barry2 Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows 98 4.10 Build Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, November 22, 2002, Barry2 wrote... As the foreign student found when taking a trip to the UK to improve his English ... and the first thing he saw when exiting the train station was HAIR pronounced SUCCESS ... and promptly gave up *ever* trying to understand the English language like a native of this crazy island lol grins and apparently American's spell Cheese 'KRAFT'... ;) So it's no real wonder people are always confused ;) - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 6.5.8ckt iQA/AwUBPd6KQiuD6BT4/R9zEQLHZwCePNLmTOsM8WXiWQKmNc92hR1ocX8AoPgV Y9R4iEu6FqlSusC2RVXw7v4p =0KRM -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
Hello Jonathan! On Friday, November 22, 2002 at 8:49:18 PM you wrote: grins and apparently American's spell Cheese 'KRAFT'... ;) So it's no real wonder people are always confused ;) ghote = Shavian for ... The answer I will publish later, for those not familiar with his (another answer I provide later) famous fight against English spelling. -- Dierk Haasis The Bat 1.62/Beta6 on Windows XP 5.1 2600Service Pack 1 Das Vergleichen mit anderen ist das Ende des Glücks und der Anfang der Unzufriedenheit. (Sören Kierkegaard) Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
In reply to Simon's message '(SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line' on Fri, 22 Nov 2002 01:57:04 + from [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Simon, S In a recent discussion with a friend I was _told_ ;) that 'Re:' S used in the subject line of an email was an abbreviation for S 'Reply' and _not_ 'Regarding', and that Re: _shouldn't ever_ be S used in the sense of 'Regarding' when used in email message Subject S fields. The use of Re: to represent 'Regarding' is, IMO, rather superficial. The field is a 'Subject' field, and hence, it is already implied that whatever is in the field is what the email is regarding, hence, IMO, having Re: in the subject field simply means Regarding Regarding: insert subject here What else is going to be in a subject field, if its not what the email is regarding Its a little pointless to double up. -- dan. e [EMAIL PROTECTED] w http://www.danhirning.com Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
Hello Dierk, On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 20:55:33 +0100 GMT (23/11/02, 02:55 +0700 GMT), Dierk Haasis wrote: ghote = Shavian for ... The answer I will publish later, for those not familiar with his (another answer I provide later) famous fight against English spelling. The suspense is killing me. I'll watch out for your next publication on TBOT. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Auf Nytol Schlafmittel: Achtung: Kann Muedigkeit verursachen Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta7 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
Hello Daniel, On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 12:14:13 +1100 GMT (23/11/02, 08:14 +0700 GMT), Daniel Hirning wrote: What else is going to be in a subject field, if its not what the email is regarding The internal file number of the sender. ;-) Seriously, in my last company, this was the usage they had for subject fields in outgoing messages. Luckily, they listened to me and changed their system so that their business partners then received messages with meaningful subjects. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. What? What the hell is a RFC? I _do_ already use NAV! - Peter Palmreuther on TBUDL. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta7 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
Hello Dierk Thank you for your email dated Friday, November 22, 2002, 7:55:33 PM, in which you wrote: DH ghote = Shavian for ... Fish. Or should it be trout? -- Regards William www.residues.info Flying with The Bat! www.ritlabs.com/the_bat Windows 2000 Pro 2195 Service Pack 2 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
Hello Simon, On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 01:57:04 + GMT (22/11/02, 08:57 +0700 GMT), Simon wrote: In a recent discussion with a friend I was _told_ ;) that 'Re:' used in the subject line of an email was an abbreviation for 'Reply' Anyhow, after thinking about it, I can understand that using Re: in a *new message* to mean 'Regarding' may be confounding to the recipient of it as it may be mistaken to mean a 'Reply', but I am still uncertain whether there is an actual proper or accepted usage of 'Re:' in email messages. Re: stands for Reply. I looked up RFC2822 and from what I can gather the use of Re: is first of all optional as it states that: RFC2822...the field body MAY start with the string Re: ... It then goes on to define Re: : RFC2822...string Re: (from the Latin res, in the matter of)... This is a misuqoting. Here is the a more complete version: These three fields are intended to have only human-readable content with information about the message. 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. RFC2822 therefore states that the Re: may be used when *in a reply*. The author's assessment that res is a Latin expression meaning in the matter of is wrong, res is just a female noun meaning thing or matter. Whether Re: stands for res (in which case I wonder why we exchange the last s with a colon) or for Reply: is anybody's guess. I would say the latter, in the sense of: I am replying to your mail with a subject of: [followed be the original subject]. Well the RFC would then seem to be suggesting the use of Re: in the sense of 'Regarding'. However, The Bat! (and some other clients) seem to be using 'Re:' to mean 'Reply' and not in the matter of, as my friend is suggesting is proper. Your friend misread the RFC, and TB and all other (RFC-abiding) clients use Re: in replies. Note that the little word may means that it is perfectly OK to just repeat the original subject without adding Re: in the reply. But creating a new message and starting the subject line with Re: is not what is meant. Does Re: mean 'Regarding' or 'Reply' when used in the Subject field? It means Reply. And is one acceptable and the other unacceptable? It is acceptable (and quite common and sensible, but not absolutely necessary) to add Re: to the beginning of a subject line when replying. It is not acceptable in other cases. HTH. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta7 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: (SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line
ON Friday, November 22, 2002, 2:57:04 AM, you wrote: S So, does anyone know whether there is some email etiquette to settle this. S Does Re: mean 'Regarding' or 'Reply' when used in the Subject field? And is S one acceptable and the other unacceptable? Hi Simon, Sometimes standard are created by the use of a product. I would never interpret Re: as meaning regarding. I would therefore say that the abreviation of Regarding as Re:, specially in the subject of an email will not be interpreted as such and is therefore unacceptable. All of this is only valid if you are using English ;-) -- Best regards, Gerard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Universal Laws of Golf: A severe slice is a thing of awesome power and beauty. Using The Bat! v1.62/Beta7 on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 Current version is 1.61 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
