In <20070817075403(_dot_)GT27645(_at_)apb-laptoy(_dot_)apb(_dot_)alt(_dot_)za>
Alan Barrett <apb(_at_)cequrux(_dot_)com> writes:
Perhaps it would make sense to strengthen the idea that "Re:" is a fixed
string not to be translated into other languages (I see "AW:" more often
than any other attempted translation), and that things like "Re: re:" or
"Re^2:" or "Re: AW: Re:" should be avoided. I seem to recall that
USEFOR came up with some reasonable wording for this, but I can't find
it now.
The wording at one time in USEFOR was:
Followup agents MAY remove strings that are known to be used
erroneously as back-reference (such as "Re(2): ", "Re:", "RE: ", or
"Sv: ") from the Subject-content when composing the subject of a
followup, and add a correct back-reference in front of the result.
NOTE: that would be "SHOULD remove instances" except that we
cannot find a sufficiently robust and simple algorithm to do the
necessary natural language processing.
Followup agents MUST NOT use any other string except "Re: " as a back
reference. Specifically, a translation of "Re: " into a local
language or usage MUST NOT be used.
NOTE: "Re" is an abbreviation for the Latin "In re", meaning "in
the matter of", and not an abbreviation of "Reference" as is
sometimes erroneously supposed.
That is not in the present syntactic and semantic drafts, but there is an
intention for a third BCP draft (working title USEAGE) and similar wording
(and much more) appears in the current USEAGE draft. But what will go in
the final USEAGE draft remains to be seen.
--
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