From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/6200 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jason L Tibbitts III Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Rewriting the subject (Was: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch)) Date: 13 May 1996 23:41:08 -0500 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035146690 2848 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:44:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:44:50 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: ding-request@ifi.uio.no Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by deanna.miranova.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA05367 for ; Mon, 13 May 1996 23:30:56 -0700 Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (tibbs@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Tue, 14 May 1996 06:41:16 +0200 Original-Received: (from tibbs@localhost) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id XAA22022; Mon, 13 May 1996 23:41:09 -0500 (CDT) Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no In-Reply-To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of 11 May 1996 02:37:06 +0200 Original-Lines: 20 X-Mailer: September Gnus v0.84/Emacs 19.30 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6200 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6200 >>>>> "LMI" == Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes: LMI> Steven L Baur writes: >> If this Subject: were instead: Subject: Re: Re[2]: Re^3: [hwg-main] Web >> site -Reply -Reply -Reply >> >> What would the harm be in Gnus rewriting the header as: Subject: Re: >> [hwg-main] Web site LMI> That would violate the GNKSA. Even if that were not the case, LMI> rewriting subject headers will break threading (and stuff) on some LMI> newsreaders. I will always rewrite the subject of a message to be both pertinent and devoid of Re: RE^8: Re[356]: -Reply garbage. If there are newsreaders that can't understand it then tough. The subject line is for humans. A newsreader should be looking at References: (or In-reply-To: which we don't seem to set). IMHO, of course. - J<