From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/6211 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Greg Stark Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Rewriting the subject (Was: [sgnus v0.83] Followup Subject: typos in message.el (patch)) Date: 15 May 1996 00:31:39 -0400 Sender: gsstark@fierce-bad-rabbit.MIT.EDU Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035146699 2874 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:44:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:44:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@ifi.uio.no 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 WAA07065 for ; Tue, 14 May 1996 22:04:42 -0700 Original-Received: from MIT.EDU (PACIFIC-CARRIER-ANNEX.MIT.EDU [18.69.0.28]) by ifi.uio.no with SMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id ; Wed, 15 May 1996 06:31:43 +0200 Original-Received: from FIERCE-BAD-RABBIT.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP id AA20530; Wed, 15 May 96 00:30:20 EDT Original-Received: by fierce-bad-rabbit.MIT.EDU (5.57/4.7) id AA06909; Wed, 15 May 96 00:31:40 -0400 X-Yow: An Italian is COMBING his hair in suburban DES MOINES! X-Spook: BATF Noriega cracking Qaddafi Clinton NSA Panama plutonium Original-To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen In-Reply-To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of (unknown date) Original-Lines: 24 X-Mailer: September Gnus v0.83/Emacs 19.30 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6211 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:6211 Well the question is, given that i am replying to a message with Subject: Re[145]: re^4: WORD TOTALLY RO=?ISO-X-666?ABNSAGHS?=OOLZ!!!!!!!!! -reply Do we really want to construct the new header as: Subject: Re: Re[145]: re^4: ... It seems we're only making the problem worse, the header is now even further from the structure intended by the RFCs. To some degree i sympathize with Lars' argument about strengthening the standards, but unless you expect those packages to actually go away rather than spread it doesn't matter. I expect rather than strengthen the standards, we would only make those authors claim, "well look what happens when people strictly follow the standards; standards restrict my ability to support cool new features and make stupid headers like these." And now, what if i write a hook to do my "manual" rewriting of the Subject automatically, is that ok? What if Lars wrote it? What's the difference? I don't think you can change the world by making life harder on other packages, you can make life easier by demonstrating what headers are supposed to look like. Greg