-----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
