Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!kth!sunic!dkuug!tidk!storm
From: storm@texas.dk (Kim F. Storm)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: Proliferation of "Re^n:" in subject lines
Message-ID: <363@texas.dk>
Date: 12 Jul 89 10:09:10 GMT
References: <532.24B7A45F@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us>
Organization: Texas Instruments, Denmark
Lines: 30

In article <532.24B7A45F@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes:

>Ya know, I really hate to say this, but...
>The "Re^n:" business is a direct violation of RFC-1036:

I am truefully sorry for having violated RFC-1036, and I apologize to
all the non-nn users who I have caused problems with the Re^n: prefix.

With the just released patch #4 applied, nn will just put a single Re:
in the subject line (as you can see from this article's subject.)  
So I honestly hope that the Re^n: prefixes will disappear very soon.

On the other hand, I did get some YES votes in favor of the Re^n:
style, so perhaps it is something to consider for a future version of
RFC-1036.


The result of the vote for or against including the article-id in the
"... writes:" line was:

YES, include it:	12
NO, don't include it:	10
DON'T CARE:		10
Make it optional:	 3

So I have made it optional in nn (as it is in rn).
-- 
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!