storm@texas.dk (Kim F. Storm) (07/04/89)
wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes: >In article <401@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> aem@ibiza.cs.miami.edu (a.e.mossberg) writes: >>Personally I think it's elegant. Alot more attractive than >>"Re: Re: re: re: Re: Re: guns and the NRA (was: guns guns guns guns guns)" >>or somesuch. >Both behaviours are evidence of broken news readers. You say that every thing else than Re: is evidence of a broken news reader? Since the sender is responsible for what goes into the Subject: line, how can you blame the news reader? Over the years, I have 'tuned' the parsing of Subject: lines to cope with a myriad of different 'Re:' prefixes - including Re^n which I did not invent, but which I adapted as a 'nice' alternative to the re: re: re: form which is not uncommon! Here are some of the prefixes recognized by nn - don't blame it on nn that other news readers don't understand them - they have all occurred on the net before nn was posted: Re: RE: RE re Re^2: And if you notice the subject of this article which is a follow up to your article with the subject Re: Re^2: .... nn has put in Re^4: I did it because I think it is a good and consistent alternative to the present method (one OR MORE) Re: prefixes in various forms. But if the net community think it is a bad idea, I have no (big) objections against changing nn to just issue a single Re: prefix (after cleaning out the existing falvours of RE prefixes). So, send me your vote on this matter (To: storm@texas.dk): Q1) YES: keep the Re^n: prefix. NO: revert to a single Re: prefix. About the missing article id:s in the "xxx (yyy) writes:" line, I am a bit puzzled, because nn used to include the article id in this header. I have a vague idea that I took it out a while back, because the article id:s began to be extremely long (40-50 characters) on a lot of articles (look at the reference line of this article for an extreme example), which made this simple header span two or three lines. And the article id IS in the reference line if you need it! Should I put it back? Include your vote on this with the previous vote: Q2) YES: put article-id back into "In article AID .... writes:" NO: keep current "... writes:" form -- Kim F. Storm storm@texas.dk Tel +45 429 174 00 Texas Instruments, Marielundvej 46E, DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark No news is good news, but nn is better!