In <200411191056(_dot_)29047(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
The draft doesn't mention two very important considerations:
1. the defined semantics of the field (RFC 2822):
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.
Added cruft identifying some list, etc. does not conform to the
defined semantics ("identifying the topic of the message").
Yes, but you are being somewhat selective in your quotations from RFC
2822, because it _does_ give some sort of approval to the "Re: " hack.
--
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