Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
From: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: Proliferation of "Re^n:" in subject lines
Message-ID: <14464@bfmny0.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jul 89 01:48:31 GMT
References: <532.24B7A45F@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> <363@texas.dk>
Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Organization: ^
Lines: 21

In article <363@texas.dk> storm@texas.dk (Kim F. Storm) writes:
>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.

I'm glad the non-conformant header will be promptly removed, and I
don't want to add unnecessary flames, but I just want to point
something out that those YES voters may not have thought of: Unless
EVERYONE obeys the "Re^n:" syntax, it is useless.  You can exchange
ten followups with RN(1) users and end up with Re^5: or less in
your message.  No meaningful information is conveyed.

On the other hand, if References: were fully implemented and understood
by news reading software, then a much more complete picture of the
"followup tree" would be available than a mere "Re^n:" could ever
convey.  And this References: understanding could be coded by the NN
project team, if it chose, without impacting RFC1036 in the slightest.

-- 
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\	Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\	uunet!bfmny0!tneff