* Tapani Tarvainen <m...@tapanitarvainen.fi> [2022-01-14 10:20]: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 08:20:55PM -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy (ke...@8t8.us) > wrote: > > > I've been told other prefixes are often used in some lists, and the > > practice is getting more common. > > Other prefixes have also long been used by some non-English speakers > and lists. While it does have its downsides, I also understand the > need, and I would like to conform to such customs in order to avoid > accumulating mixed prefixes. > > So I would like to have mutt allow changing the reply prefix, even if > it is arguably against RF5322.
I do not see anything that is "against" the RFC5322. First the quote from RFC5322: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5322 3.6.5. Informational Fields The informational fields are all optional. The "Subject:" and "Comments:" fields are unstructured fields as defined in section 2.2.1, and therefore may contain text or folding white space. The "Keywords:" field contains a comma-separated list of one or more words or quoted-strings. subject = "Subject:" unstructured CRLF comments = "Comments:" unstructured CRLF keywords = "Keywords:" phrase *("," phrase) CRLF These three fields are intended to have only human-readable content with information about the message. The "Subject:" field is the most common and contains a short string identifying the topic of the message. When used in a reply, the field body MAY start with the string "Re: " (an abbreviation of the Latin "in re", meaning "in the matter of") followed by the contents of the "Subject:" field body of the original message. If this is done, only one instance of the literal string "Re: " ought to be used since use of other strings or more than one instance can lead to undesirable consequences. The "Comments:" field contains any additional comments on the text of the body of the message. The "Keywords:" field contains a comma- separated list of important words and phrases that might be useful for the recipient. It MAY, and it MAY NOT. There is no strict rule to it. The true Lating meaning of "Re: " is hardly known to public, IMHO. Latin language may be said to be hardly international in the context of email transmission. RFC in general are not hard rules to be followed, yet those represent invitation to agreements between people and communication relations. Internationally, people are using various localized versions for decades already. List of email subject abbreviations - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_email_subject_abbreviations People already misunderstand what "Re: " is meant to be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_email_subject_abbreviations#Standard_prefixes Thus RFC5322 does not contribute to overall understanding. It remains as capricious decision by Latin language speaker who introduced it in the document. It does not represent international consent. -- Thanks, Jean Louis Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns
