[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New I-D: draft-koch-subject-tags-considered-00.txt

2004-11-30 05:12:39

In <200411290827(_dot_)15198(_dot_)blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly 
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:

On Mon November 22 2004 06:07, Charles Lindsey wrote:

Yes, but you are being somewhat selective in your quotations from RFC

Yes, RFC 2822 covers a lot of ground; I selected the appropriate
parts concerning the defined syntax and semantics of the field
under discussion.

because it _does_ give some sort of approval to the "Re: " hack. 

No, (as is sometimes the case where "MAY" is used) it states
an obvious fact;  true the Subject field body may start with
"Re: " -- it may also start with "Blurfl" or any other content
consistent with the defined (viz. unstructured) syntax.  Once
a message has been sent, there is no defined meaning (in a
protocol sense) to any part of a Subject field; users (or UA
authors) can make guesses, but guesses are sometimes wrong
and play no role in a well-designed protocol.

But for some inexplicable reason the words "the field body may start with
the string "Blurfl" do not appear in RFC 2822, which suggests, to me at
least, that the string "Re: " was intended to have some special
significance which does not apply to the string "Blurfl".

Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web:
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, 
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>