On 9 Jul 99, at 10:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What is the accepted practise with respect to tags and 'Re:'? ... My
> guess is that they should show up after the 'Re:' as this makes the most
> sense when threading is taken into account.
That's what I thought. Indeed, my MUA [and a fair number of others, I
suspect] make a special case of subjects beginning "Re:" I thought
there was an RFC [was it one of the news, not email, rfcs??] that
actually specified that: it said that a reply [or followup or whatever]
should have a subject beginning with the four letters "re: ". I just
took a quick look and couldn't find it though...
> BC> If not, then that might well be the ugliest/worst of the solutions: now
> BC> I'll have mail in my inbox *both* "Re: this subject" _and_ "Re:
> BC> [MYLIST] this subject" [...]
>
> Well, if you get CC'd, the MLM isn't going to have any control over what
> goes directly to you and so you may see tags in this situation.
Not so much of an issue, since the cc'ed copy will go into my personal
folder, but the copy via that MLM [which will be sorted into its thread]
will go into the list's folder.. for my personal stuff it hardly matters,
tag or not...
> BC> [...] and I don't know about yours, but my mail client won't sort those
> BC> correctly [and so I won't be able to follow the thread particularly].
>
> Well, you could always ask the folks who wrote it to change that behavior.
> Or, if you have the source, you could hack a bit. Or play with Procmail.
Alas, it'll be an unfortunate day when the only folk that can have
reasonable mail facilities are those who are Unix hackers and have the
luxury of a shell account on the system that handles their email, and/or
are programmers and have access to appropriate sources and development
tools... Better, wouldn't it be, that the newcomers clamoring for a new
feature be constrained a bit to have it added in a way that doesn't break
the existing conventions and rules and clients?
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--
