Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!nuchat!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Tired of bogus subject lines?
Message-ID: <6121@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 11 Sep 89 12:30:33 GMT
References: <7921@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <1650@unocss.UUCP> <11527@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 29

In article <11527@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, rsk@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
> Well, until someone writes another RFC to replace the existing one, it's all
> we've got, flaws or not -- and silently tossing an article into "junk"
> because of a noncompliant "Subject" line doesn't seem inherently different
> to me than junking it because it has no "From" line, a badly formatted "Date",
> or any other problem.

But the From and Date lines are computer generated.

Let's consider a potential case. Suppose I'm reading rec.arts.sf-lovers, and
I am getting tired of the Annual Heinlein Flame Fest. I post an article with
the subject:

	Re^32767: Flaming Heinlein.

It's not a reply, it doesn't violate the RFC. It *looks* to a human like it's
in violation, but the RFC doesn't mention subject lines beginning with "Re^"
at all, so it's OK.

A few (very few) remaining NN sites might still be doing this automatically,
but the problem is going away without your terrorist tactics. Yes, that's
broken... as it would be if it just copied the subject line without putting
any "Re" at all. Should you junk any articles with a references line and no
Re: in the subject line? Feh.
-- 
Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-'
"BORED OF THE RINGS was written by Sir James Burton, the famous actor. It was
published by the Society for the Propagation of Religious Truth." - Tim Maroney