On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:15:27 +0200, Alexander S. Kunz wrote: >>In short, this Re: numbering is non-RFC
>Can you point me to the RFC that says reply prefixes *MUST NOT* >contain these numbers? RFC-2822 has this to say: 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. If I understand correctly, it implies: "you MAY use 1 instance of "Re: " in a reply, but you SHOULD NOT use other strings as it can lead to undesirable consequences". >>superfluous and stupid, and RIT should get rid of it as soon as >>possible >Its configurable, so what. Maybe it should be off by default though. That doesn't make it any less superfluous or stupid. Arjan -- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ________________________________________________ Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
