On 2022-01-14 11:05:14 +0300, Jean Louis wrote: > I do not see anything that is "against" the RFC5322.
You misread it. See my other replies. > It MAY, and it MAY NOT. There is no strict rule to it. Indeed, it doesn't say "MAY NOT", so that "Re: " is not forbidden. But this does not mean that other prefixes are allowed. > The true Lating meaning of "Re: " is hardly known to public, > IMHO. I don't think there really need to know. It is common, standard, and people know that it is used in replies, and that's sufficient. > Latin language may be said to be hardly international in the > context of email transmission. Well, just a word. But note that it is not forbidden to use something else for display, just like what is done for the standard headers "From", "To", etc. > People already misunderstand what "Re: " is meant to be: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_email_subject_abbreviations#Standard_prefixes What is said is that people may misunderstand the origin of "Re". I also thought that this was an abbreviation of "Reply" (instead of the Latin origin). This did not prevent me from knowing what it means in practice. > 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. The point is technical. Without a standard prefix, you could get accumulated ones, as it occurs in practice due to MUAs not following the RFC. -- 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)
