[Users] The reply mark in subject (R: Re:) recognition

[Jerry]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:40:57 +0200
Michael Rasmussen articulated:

> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:04:44 -0400
> Jerry <jerry at seibercom.net> wrote:
> 
> > In this case, if another MUA starts an original reply with a
> > variant of "RE:", shouldn't claws-mail respect that also? I have
> > been reading up on the various RFCs that apparently deal with this
> > and have not been able to find a concrete answer.
> > 
> No. How should a MUA know whatever other markup another MUA uses for
> "RE: "?
> 
> The same applies to HTML. <P> means a paragraph and if I choose to use
> <A> in my implementation and the distribute this to various browsers
> how should these other browsers then know that HTML documents coming
> from my implementation uses <A> as a markup for a paragraph? Should
> they allow anything between <> to be treated as a paragraph and then
> use a heuristic algorithm to deside whether <gibberish> means
> paragraph or something completely different? How you any idea of the
> impact on the size of the code base for a browser and the following
> degration in performance?

The <p> is documented in the HTML specifications. There is no RFC that
specifically limits the use of "RE: " to indicate an email reply.

-- 
Jerry ♔

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__________________________________________________________________