todd@ivucsb.sba.ca.us (Todd Day) (09/11/89)
Is the above subject line illegal according to the RFC? Please note that Re^2: is actually part of my subject that I've chosen and was not generated by any newsposter. The reason I bring this up is because I beleive replies shouldn't be controlled by the Subject: line, but by References: lines. Many times a thread wanders off a beaten path, but keeps the same subject line, even though it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. But I am merely telling you things you already know. :-) I'm getting into dangerous territory here, as I am dredging up an old subject brought back to life by Brad Templeton a few months ago. Speaking of which... did anyone come up with any solutions to the References: line thread following problem? -- Todd Day | todd@ivucsb.sba.ca.us | ivucsb!todd@anise.acc.com "Just give me a killer sound system and the babes will follow."
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (09/12/89)
In article <1989Sep11.102545.10390@ivucsb.sba.ca.us> todd@ivucsb.sba.ca.us (Todd Day) writes:
Is the above subject line illegal according to the RFC? Please note
that Re^2: is actually part of my subject that I've chosen and was
not generated by any newsposter.
I don't know if it's illegal or not, but I sort alphabetically on
subject, with "Re:" ignored. When you use Re^2, it's a new subject,
sorted down in the R's, totally disconnected from the thread. By the
time I get to it, I've forgotten the rest of the thread, so I
frequently "n" or "k".
Besides, when somebody then replies, we get Re: Re^2: ...
Either give it a completely new subject line, with (Was: whatever) or
just stick with the "standard" Re:.
The reason I bring this up is because I beleive replies shouldn't be
controlled by the Subject: line, but by References: lines. Many
times a thread wanders off a beaten path, but keeps the same subject
line, even though it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. But
I am merely telling you things you already know. :-)
Everybody expects threads to branch out on tangents (a sufficiently
tangled metaphor?) and efforts to impose some rational referencing
will probably never work.
Besides, IMO it's a little insulting--sort of a condescending "I'm so
smart that I can see that this is/isn't relevant and I'm going to mark
it for lame little you."
--
Mary Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
Of course I don't speak for NASA