[Users] The reply mark in subject (R: Re:) recognition
Paul Rolland (=?UTF-8?B?44Od44O844Or44O744Ot44Op44Oz?=)
rol at witbe.net
Wed Aug 8 14:38:49 CEST 2012
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 14:24:49 +0200
Michael Rasmussen <mir at miras.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 08:06:38 -0400
> Jerry <jerry at seibercom.net> wrote:
> > The problem here is clearly the use of the word "MAY"⁽¹⁾.
> Yes, may in a RFC means this functionality is optional but if the
> functionality is included the functionally "MUST" respect the RFC which
> means a subject line indicating this is a reply to another mail MUST
> use, and ONLY use, Re: to indicate this.
What's more :
2822 Internet Message Format. P. Resnick, Ed.. April 2001. (Format:
TXT=110695 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC0822) (Obsoleted by RFC5322) (Updated
by RFC5335, RFC5336) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
5322 Internet Message Format. P. Resnick, Ed.. October 2008. (Format:
TXT=122322 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC2822) (Updates RFC4021) (Status:
When used in a reply, the field body MAY start with the
string "Re: " (an abbreviation of the Latin "in re", meaning "in the
matter of") followed by the contents of the "Subject:" field body of
the original message. If this is done, only one instance of the
literal string "Re: " ought to be used since use of other strings or
more than one instance can lead to undesirable consequences.
So not only should it be "Re: " (with a space after :), but there should be
only one of them.
Any other strings seems to be mainly originated by :
- Microsoft Outlook,
- Lotus Notes
where people have considered "Re:" as a shortcut for "Reply", and then
translated it in all the gazillions of languages we have on earth, while
they dutifully forgot about de-duplicating the "Re: Re: Aw: Damn subject" ;)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Users