On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Uwe Ohse wrote:
> Could you please add a In-Reply-To Header and Re: to the subject?
^^^^^^^^^^^
hmm... I can't find any reference to this in RFC-822.
----
RFC2822 says:
3.6.4. Identification fields
Though optional, every message SHOULD have a "Message-ID:" field.
Furthermore, reply messages SHOULD have "In-Reply-To:" and
"References:" fields as appropriate, as described below.
----
well should is not MUST, so it is perfectly conformant to post without
them.
on the subject of Re:
----
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.
----
well, MAY is even weaker than SHOULD in RFC terminology, so the email is
still conformant.
> Well, i certainly hope you finish this process soon, since you
> are violating the RFCs.
nope, he is not.
really! so until he uses a mailer you feel happy with he's not going to
get help from you, well that attitude just sucks.
it's also in violation of an underlying principle: "be liberal in what you
receive, be strict about what you send"
RjL, will help anyone for thanks, regardless of mailer
==================================================================
You know that. I know that. But when || Austin, Texas
you talk to a monkey you have to || Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
grunt and wave your arms -ck ||
