On 2022-01-14 14:36:13 +0300, Jean Louis wrote: > * Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.org> [2022-01-14 12:20]: > > 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. > > Quite contrary, my understanding is that it implies that anything is > allowed in the Subject: line. That is foundation of basic freedom for > people to choose how their subject line should or would be.
This has nothing to do with the freedom. The RFC says how mail software should behave. The user still has the choice to modify the subject, e.g. to change the "topic" of a reply, including the "Re:" prefix if he really wants to. > > > 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. > > I don't agree. Anything in a computer program should be very > accessible and understandable to computer user. Anything else is lack > of accessibility. If person does not know what is "Forwarding Email" > that function will never be used. If people do not understand what > means "Re: " which became evident as fact worldwide, then they start > replacing it with their own language. Precisely because "Re:" is standard, the software is able to present it in a nicer way for the user. For instance, Mutt shows the topic only on the first message of a thread, making clear that the topic hasn't changed. MUAs still have the possibility to translate it for display or explain what it means with a tooltip or any thing else. All this would not be possible without a standard prefix. Software that changes "Re:" to something else probably don't know the RFCs (or sometimes they were initially written for some other messaging system and poorly ported to Internet mail). There's also the possibility that hardcoded strings get blindly translated. I doubt very much that this is because people do not understand it. > Intention with that RFC was to make a standard. But standard shall be > made based on people's needs, not on RFC writer needs. [...] See above. > > > 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. > > It is definitely disturbing to see "Re: Re: Re: " in subject lines. MUAs aware of the RFC know that they shouldn't add a second "Re: ". -- 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)
