On Saturday, January 12, 2002, 12:44:45 PM, Marck wrote: MDP> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- MDP> Hash: SHA1
MDP> Hi Chris, MDP> On 12 January 2002 at 08:43:26 +0100 (which was 07:43 where I live) MDP> Chris Lilley wrote to Jernej Simon�i� and made these points: >> Where is the Re[n] converion defined (eg, some RFC or other) because >> my sysadmin has asked to to set The Bat! to not do that, on the >> grounds that RFC 822 does not list this convention. MDP> That's not actually true. The RFC puts no constraint on the way MDP> Subject: header content is used. My sysadmin quoted this from RFC 822, sec 3.6.5: 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. So thats a MAY for using "Re: " at all, but if you do then the MUA ought (which I would read as a SHOULD) to have only one of them. The use of MAY, SHOULD, SHALL etc is defined in RFC 2119 (and I don't like the capitals either but there we are). Clearly RFC 822 precedes that though, chronologically. Now personally I can see that using "Re[n]" is a way to ensure that only one occurence of the string "Re" occurs at the start of the subject. However, its "Re: " (four characters) not "Re" (two characters) that is discussed in the RFC. MDP> Your sysadmin shouldn't have any MDP> cause to complain about the content of the message body or pre-amble MDP> unless it really does contravene the RFCs. "Re[n]" does not contravene MDP> any. That is true, it does not contravene any (though it seems odd that the usage is defined only by common practice and not written down anywhere). >> I assume ther is a good reason for it though and it seems useful, so >> I would prefer to point my sysadmin at some specification that The >> Bat! is complying with ... any ideas? MDP> It is not a specification. It may have come from FIDO, but it's very MDP> "Bat!". I actually turned it off completely myself very early on and MDP> have left it that way. All of my templates use the %SINGLERE macro to MDP> do that. OK, I may need to fall back on that .... thanks for the tip. -- Chris mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ______________________________________________________ Archives : http://tbtech.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
