In <KEAa/ECEvWnnkAN8TGGyLQ(_dot_)md5(_at_)libertango(_dot_)oryx(_dot_)com> Arnt
Gulbrandsen <arnt(_at_)gulbrandsen(_dot_)priv(_dot_)no> writes:
Do you think it is better once all those fun-loving translators have
been at it? We've seen "Re" mutate into dozens of translated prefixes.
I see no reason to think that your proposed keyword would escape the
fate of Re.
Yes, we have been trying hard in the USEFOR WG to limit it to a single
"Re", with a strong hint that even that is a Bad Thing (though the
practice is too entrenched to forbid it entirely).
OTOH, the IMAP people are still writing drafts that document all the known
variants of "Re" and "Fwd" and expecting software to deal with them :-( .
However the particular proposal I have made here has a slightly better
chance of working, since the published submission address of a mailing
list could include that group syntax LIST (and even if some rogue mailing
list used LISTE, it would still be recognized by users of that list).
But I agree it is not a pretty solution, and so it could never be more
than a _convention_ established in some BCP document.
However, the problem remains (several posters here have indicated that
lots of problems would go away if there was some way to distinguish the
list addresses out of a bunch of addresses culled from the various From:,
To:, Cc:, Reply-To: and MFT headers found in the original message). So if
anyone has a better solution, then please let us hear it.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave,
CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5