On 2022-01-13 21:25:27 -0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 11:57:37PM -0500, John Hawkinson wrote: > > One is confined to the content of a message and the other affects > > critical message metadata that is often displayed in abbreviated form. > > "Critical message metadata" that is (*ahem*) gently suggested via MAY in the > RFC.
See my other reply. "MAY" is just because "Re: " is allowed instead of nothing. Otherwise there is the sentence with "ought". > However, I am listening, and if the general consensus is that this option is > a bad idea, I will back it out. OK, thanks. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
