On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 02:44:01PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 08:40:43PM +0000, Grant Edwards wrote: > > Personally, I don't care what people use as long as they don't start > > piling up like this: > > > > sv: re: sv: re: ax: er: tr: gq: The original subject here > > And that is exactly why it IS specified in RFC 2822.
Incidentally, while looking this up, I ran across a post which suggested that the intent behind specifying a specific string in the RFC was that it made two related problems simple: The first was the one you brought up, and the second is that mail clients can simply choose to *display* a localized version of 'Re:' instead of that string. The hueristic for doing so is greatly simplified if the token is standardized and invariable. Sadly, RFCs are very good at explaining WHAT to do (well, usually), but very often completely fail to address WHY to do it. I guess they'd be too long if they explained everything... -- 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.
pgpIswu5eK0qT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
