Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(December 1996)

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: "Re[6]: subject"
From: junkyard @ primate . wisc . edu (Software Development)
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 15:11:17 -0600
To: list-managers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <v03007802aeca1c22c1aa @ [204 . 141 . 48 . 20]>; from Robert Mah on Dec 3, 1996 13:05:38 -0500
References: <9612030033 . AA07818 @ tardis . tymnet . com> <v03007802aeca1c22c1aa @ [204 . 141 . 48 . 20]>

> >In reference to the subject lines of
> >	Subject
> >	Re: Subject
> >	Re[2]: Subject
> >	Re[4]: Subject
> >	Re: Re[4]: Subject
> >which mailer is responsible for the abomination of adding "[n]" after "Re:"?
> >
> >Isn't there an RFC that states "thou shalt not change 'Re:' to anything else"?

Is there?  What is it, I'd like to read it.  I run a list for which I
rewrite the Subject: header to put "[PT]" at the front of the subject
so that list traffic can be easily identified by subscribers.  Of course
that means replies and replies to replies could end up generating ugly
junk like this:

	Subject: [PT] some message
	Subject: [PT] Re: [PT] some message
	Subject: [PT] Re: [PT] Re: [PT] some message
	Subject: [PT] Re: [PT] Re: [PT] Re: [PT] some message
	Subject: [PT] Re: [PT] Re: [PT] Re: [PT] Re: [PT] some message

So instead I look for "Re: [PT]" at the front of Subject: lines and
rewrite it to "[PT] Re:" to avoid this.

That's not exactly rewriting the "Re:", perhaps, but I'd be interested
to know what an RFC has to say on the issue.

Paul DuBois
dubois @
 primate .
 wisc .
Home page:

Indexed By Date Previous: Re: re[2]: Lyris
From: bruceb @ fatcity . com (Bruce Bergman)
Next: Smartlist Information
From: Sandi-J <sjepsen @ verinet . com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: "Re[6]: subject"
From: Robert Mah <rmah @ angel . net>
Next: Re: "Re[6]: subject"
From: Vicki Richman <vicric @ panix . com>

Search Internet Search