Re: Subjects, "Re" and "Fwd" (was Re: Re: pine, and x509 certificates (fwd))

On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, David Morris wrote:
> While there may be a lack of standards, it would be very helpful to
> users if a provision were implemented which allowed users to specify
> handling of token-colon strings which prefix subjects.

Please read the draft document on IMAP sorting, and in particular section 
2.1 which discusses "subject extraction rules".

That's the best explanation why there isn't much enthusiasm among MUA 
designers for allowing user configurability of subject artifacts (or for 
changing existing long-term behavior).

I would be the first in line to support a mandatory, One True Format for 
subject artifacts -- but only in a published RFC.  Usenet folklore does 
not count.  As I said before, the moment an MUA changes to accomodate 
particular folklore, it will offend some other folklore.

For better or worse, Pine's practice for several years has been to append 
"(fwd)" to the end of the subject line.  Personally, my favorite forward 
subject format is something that nobody else in the world seems to like:
 	Subject: [Joe Mooch <[email protected]>: what's up, doc?]
[Besides nobody else liking it, it doesn't work with the IMAP subject 
extraction rules...so I'm not about to go on any crusade to convince the 
world to use it...nor use it myself...]

And so it goes.  This is a sleeping dog that's better off left unmolested.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
_______________________________________________
Pine-info mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/pine-info