Friday, November 22, 2002 9:00:13 AM RE: "(SOT) Use of Re: in the subject line"
Greetings Simon, On Friday, November 22, 2002, 8:27:31 AM, you wrote: TF>> "Re:" stands for Reply. S> Yes, of course, but stating that Re: MAY be used *in a reply* doesn't S> necessarily define Re:, and that is probably why there was further S> clarification by defining 'Re:' as, "from the Latin "res", in the matter S> of". Even if the author's interpretation of the Latin 'res' is proven to be S> inaccurate, as you believe, it stands that the sense being attributed to Re: S> in the RFC remains. And as I read it, the sense is, "in the matter of", or S> IOW, 'regarding'. However, I am not saying that this is the correct, S> accepted, or common usage, as that is what I was attempting to establish. I was always of the belief that RE: in correspondence indicated reference. I am probably wrong but when I send a memo or business correspondence utilizing RE: it indicates that I am referencing a topic or past incident i.e.: RE: Phonecon dated 15: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Business Security 6.0 iQA/AwUBPd45z2GmTEg4iItaEQJBjwCggdFQJeXd64IVCStX59wbrdXcPy0An01D VaDeCA02g5oub+8LyZjM23ts =dqoK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 44pm 2 November 2002 indicates I am referencing a telephone conversation dated at that date and time. I does not indicate to me that I am replying nor responding to that incident. Anyway ...... -- Regards, DG Raftery Sr. I'm writing a book. I've got the page numbers done ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
