Hello Simon, On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 01:57:04 +0000 GMT (22/11/02, 08:57 +0700 GMT), Simon wrote:
> In a recent discussion with a friend I was _told_ ;) that 'Re:' used in the > subject line of an email was an abbreviation for 'Reply' > Anyhow, after thinking about it, I can understand that using Re: in a *new > message* to mean 'Regarding' may be confounding to the recipient of it as it > may be mistaken to mean a 'Reply', but I am still uncertain whether there is > an actual proper or accepted usage of 'Re:' in email messages. "Re:" stands for Reply. > I looked up RFC2822 and from what I can gather the use of Re: is first of > all optional as it states that: RFC2822>>...the field body MAY start with the string "Re: "... > It then goes on to define "Re:" : RFC2822>>...string "Re: " (from the Latin "res", in the matter of)..." This is a misuqoting. Here is the a more complete version: > These three fields are intended to have only human-readable content > with information about the message. 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. RFC2822 therefore states that the "Re:" may be used when *in a reply*. The author's assessment that "res" is a Latin expression meaning "in the matter of" is wrong, "res" is just a female noun meaning "thing" or "matter". Whether "Re:" stands for "res" (in which case I wonder why we exchange the last "s" with a colon) or for "Reply:" is anybody's guess. I would say the latter, in the sense of: "I am replying to your mail with a subject of: [followed be the original subject]". > Well the RFC would then seem to be suggesting the use of "Re:" in the sense > of 'Regarding'. However, The Bat! (and some other clients) seem to be using > 'Re:' to mean 'Reply' and not "in the matter of", as my friend is suggesting > is proper. Your friend misread the RFC, and TB and all other (RFC-abiding) clients use Re: in replies. Note that the little word "may" means that it is perfectly OK to just repeat the original subject without adding "Re:" in the reply. But creating a new message and starting the subject line with "Re:" is not what is meant. > Does Re: mean 'Regarding' or 'Reply' when used in the Subject field? It means "Reply". > And is one acceptable and the other unacceptable? It is acceptable (and quite common and sensible, but not absolutely necessary) to add "Re:" to the beginning of a subject line when replying. It is not acceptable in other cases. HTH. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62/Beta7 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build 2222 A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
