-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, November 22, 2002, Simon wrote...
DRS>> I was always of the belief that RE: in correspondence indicated
DRS>> reference. I am probably wrong but when I send a memo or
DRS>> business correspondence utilizing RE: it indicates that I am
DRS>> referencing a topic or past incident
> Yes, I think you are correct, and 're' used to mean 'in reference
> to' is obviously correct when used formally to reference a
> matter/topic "or past incident". When used informally though I think
> it represents 'regarding', or 'in the matter of' - from res -, or
> even of course signifying 'concerning', etc. Nonetheless, they still
> all carry the same sense of 'concerning/regarding/with regard to a
> previous matter/subject/event', so interpreting Re: as 'reply' does
> not seem to be accurate, even if it is now widely recognised as
> such.
Take a look at letter formatting, as stated in the RFCs, an Re: in the
body means in reference to, which is normally how a business (or
general professional) letter is written out. As for it appearing in
the subject, it could see mean 'regarding' even when in the context of
a reply, or a new message. A reply is still regarding the same
subject, otherwise the subject gets changed. You end up seeing a
thread being built as such:
Original
- - Regarding: Original
- Regarding: Original
- New (was regarding: original).
I think in the case of replies, RE: can be used interchangeably as
'Regarding' or 'Reply To'. As for starting new emails, I guess it is
up to personal interpretation of wordings, and syntax.
That's my personal view anyway ;)
- --
Jonathan Angliss
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt
iQA/AwUBPd5WwiuD6BT4/R9zEQIn3gCfbwBVNmMKjZq8qA4BasaYZsqO4qMAoIbV
ss06IDY0sJUTpb1XFqp9plkR
=XV80
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
________________________________________________
Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
