On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 09:37:06AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2022-01-13 19:41:12 -0800, Will Yardley wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 09:42:27PM -0500, John Hawkinson wrote:
> > > Perhaps language from RFC5322 Sec. 3.6.5 should be imported into the
> > > documentation for $reply_prefix, but even that is oddly permissive
> > > ("When used in a reply, the field body MAY start with the string "Re:
> > > "") and it would be weird to change it to MUST, but I suppose wcould.
> >
> > I looked this up as well -- since it's a "MAY", I would agree that the
> > change probably does _not_ technically violate the RFC.
>
> The context is about the subject of a topic:
>
> The "Subject:" field is the most common and contains a short string
> identifying the topic of the message.
>
> So, the subject is not expected to change in a reply, otherwise the
> reply will be regarded as a different topic. What the RFC says is
> that there is an exception: "Re: " may be added before the contents
> of the "Subject:" field body of the original message. I suppose that
> the alternative is to leave the subject as is, without any prefix
> (note that the "In-Reply-To:" header is sufficient to indicate that
> this is a reply).FWIW, I agree 100% with this interpretation as well. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
