From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2004-06-11T01:58:44+09:00
Subject: Re: Reply wasn't posted; will test new post


"Austin Ziegler" <Austin.Ziegler@evault.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:04232E9E93B2D54FB1DCCCFF8C4DDB6A188ECB@ev-exch01.corp.evault.com...
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1036.html
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2119.html
>
> dblack@wobblini.net:
> > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, daz wrote:
> >> THE MISSING MESSAGES DO *NOT* VIOLATE USENET RFC.
> > Here are some excerpts from RFC-1036 (which obsoleted RFC-850):
>
> > 2.1.4. Subject
> > [...] If the message is submitted in response to another message
> > (e.g., is a follow-up) the default subject should begin with the
> > four characters "Re: ", and the "References" line is required.
> > [...]
>
> > 2.2.5 References
> > [...] User interfaces need not make use of this header, but all
> > automatically generated follow-ups should generate the
> > "References" line for the benefit of systems that do use it, and
> > manually generated follow-ups (e.g., typed in well after the
> > original message has been printed by the machine) should be
> > encouraged to include them as well.
>
> > Based on this, I would definitely say that "Re: " messages without
> > a References header are in violation of this RFC.
>
> EXCEPT that the statements are "should" (see RFC2119 noted above)
> and the header itself is optional. No news software should reject
> any message missing the References header, even if best practices
> would indicate that the References header is strongly recommended
> when "Re: " is present. Both In-Reply-To and References are
> *optional* in RFC2822 (the successor to RFC822). The real problem
> with RFC1036 is that it (1) requires English (e.g., "Re: ")
> backreferences, and (2) attempts to codify usage rules with
> technical rules.
>
> So, no, technically, messages missing "References:" are not in
> violation of RFC1036.

Somehow this thread reminds me of discussions about GPL and LGPL.
Apparently there's still too much room for interpretation in these texts
although they were meant to clarify things...

Regards

    robert