pokey@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) (09/15/89)
One thing about this Re^n stuff. It seems to me that it's no worse
than any of the other stupid shit people put in the subject line. For
instance, (long). Putting this in the subject line is a mistake, since
the subject line gets propagated to followups which may not be long.
It belongs in the summary line, I guess. For instance, people who
re-type the subject line manually, with misspellings. This breaks rn's
subject-following too. For instance, (was: ). This breaks rn's reverse
subject-following, as in I'm reading an article with subject Re: Foo,
I want to see some of the previous articles, but when I do a ^P I get
an article with subject Bar (was Re: foo) and I have to use the Force.
The only important difference between these other bogosities and Re^n
is that Re^n is generated by a program, and therefore there's at least
a chance of fixing it. So it should be fixed. It would also be nice
if all the other things I mentioned were fixed too, but that will never
happen. So the *REAL* problem is that rn's subject following code is
Fucked Up. Brad is right. Stop complaining about people polluting the
subject line, and go write (or buy from Brad!) some code to use
references instead.
---
Jef
Jef Poskanzer pokey@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!pokey
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berradavidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (09/19/89)
Ok....
What about modifying NN (I think that's the program) to have followups
as "Re:^n"?
Or is that too difficult/easy?
--
David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Email: davidbe@sco.COM / ..!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc,gorn}!sco!davidbe
Phone: 408-425-7222 x5123 Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO.
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets.