On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, Edward Murphy wrote: > G. wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote: > > > Internet messaging standards (RFC 2822) allow up to 998 characters in > > > a subject line. Gmail and other web clients usually truncate around > > > 255. Considering that, is allowing report or announcement text in the > > > subject line a precedent we're okay with? Is there other precedent to > > > guide us on that subject? (pun DEFINITELY intended) > > > > Subject lines are "weak" in terms of effect and need message-body > > provided context to function. Some principles (not looking up the > > precedents right now, but I can if need be): > > > > If the message body disagrees with the subject line, the message > > body always wins. > > > > Subject lines can be "quoted for context" in message body. For > > example, you can say in the message body "I CFJ on the statement in > > the Subject" and have it work. But you can't have a blank message > > body with "I CFJ on...X" in the Subject and have it work. > > I'd be interested in seeing the CFJ/whatever behind that last one, > because I don't remember it. What I do sorta remember is, if (a) the > body by itself is ambiguous/confusing but (b) its intent becomes clear > if you also look at the subject, then the subject is allowed to > provide that clarification.
Yah, I'm looking and I haven't found it. So right now it's just a "what I think I remember" thing. FWIW, the logic I remember is that Subject lines are like quotes in replies: they get repeated and replied to and aren't part of the textual flow, and we don't want to take every quote or subject line as a new action, so for them to be paid attention to you have to add a "TTTTPF" or an "actually, read the subject line" in the body. But I've also found that the precedent that Subject line actions don't work is woefully lacking in good arguments. It's CFJ 1631, it's cited by multiple judgements after that, and the sole argument is "because that's our custom". Unsatisfying!
