* Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.org> [2022-01-14 12:20]: > On 2022-01-14 11:05:14 +0300, Jean Louis wrote: > > I do not see anything that is "against" the RFC5322. > > You misread it. See my other replies. > > > It MAY, and it MAY NOT. There is no strict rule to it. > > Indeed, it doesn't say "MAY NOT", so that "Re: " is not forbidden. > But this does not mean that other prefixes are allowed.
Quite contrary, my understanding is that it implies that anything is allowed in the Subject: line. That is foundation of basic freedom for people to choose how their subject line should or would be. Better file bug report on that RFC because what kind of standard it is when it just provides vague instructions with "MAY". It was capitalized with intention for people to understand that "MAY" implies "OR MAY NOT". The point and conclusion is all written in the RFC, this mutt settings is just fine. It may be there and may be not. RFC says it. Anything is allowed anyway. But personally I think it is not necessary, because there is name of the Subject field which is "Subject: " -- so that alone duplicates the meaning of "in re" in Lating. It is bug in the RFC. Just ignore it. > > The true Lating meaning of "Re: " is hardly known to public, > > IMHO. > > I don't think there really need to know. It is common, standard, and > people know that it is used in replies, and that's sufficient. I don't agree. Anything in a computer program should be very accessible and understandable to computer user. Anything else is lack of accessibility. If person does not know what is "Forwarding Email" that function will never be used. If people do not understand what means "Re: " which became evident as fact worldwide, then they start replacing it with their own language. Intention with that RFC was to make a standard. But standard shall be made based on people's needs, not on RFC writer needs. Even RFC authors are trying to make best decisions, after some time new decisions come and new RFCs are enacted. This is because standards are and should be based for people, not for individual capricious authors. While it was good idea in beginning to use "Re: " even the english speaking population does not know Latin, and they think it is reply to. Meanings are not quite same. Being robotics to comply to some paper policy which is not policy, and which could not be implemented properly over time is waste of time. Do what people do, adopt people's consensus. > > Thus RFC5322 does not contribute to overall understanding. It remains > > as capricious decision by Latin language speaker who introduced it in > > the document. It does not represent international consent. > > The point is technical. Without a standard prefix, you could get > accumulated ones, as it occurs in practice due to MUAs not following > the RFC. It is definitely disturbing to see "Re: Re: Re: " in subject lines. Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns In support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/
