Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!skipper!shafer From: shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: Re^2: isn't so bad Message-ID: Date: 11 Sep 89 20:31:35 GMT References: <1989Sep11.102545.10390@ivucsb.sba.ca.us> Sender: news@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal. Lines: 34 In-reply-to: todd@ivucsb.sba.ca.us's message of 11 Sep 89 10:25:45 GMT 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