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

Jerry jerry at seibercom.net
Wed Aug 8 23:17:18 CEST 2012

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 21:52:29 +0100
Paul articulated:

> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 22:37:17 +0200
> Holger Berndt <berndth at gmx.de> wrote: 
> > MAY (note the capitals) is defined in RFC 2119. It doesn't support
> > Michael's claim either.
> My reading of the RFC is like Michael's, I say it again without the
> typo this time:
> In my understanding of this 'MAY' it means may use "Re: or may not use
> Re:". It does not mean "may use Re: or may use any other
> abbreviation".
> And to quote the RFC '"Re: " (from the Latin "res", in the matter
> of)', so Aw:, for example, (in my limited understanding of German),
> being short for Antwort, a translation of 'reply', is wrong anyway.

I have witnessed three people read the same RFC and come away shaking
their heads. All too many RFCs are deliberately written in an obscure
fashion. RFC2119 tries to state exactly what the word "MAY" means, yet
it is obviously confusing to some and unclear to others. 

RFC2822 states: "The informational fields are all optional", yet most
emails do contain one.

Personally, I never read RFCs whenever possible. They case me severe

Jerry ♔

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

More information about the Users mailing list