8-bit characters in Subject
Andreas Prilop
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
Some mail and news programs can produce 8-bit characters in the Subject.
For example, let's assume
Subject: café
When I reply with PC-Pine 4.44 to such a message, I get the Subject
Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_caf=E9?=
This looks a bit strange. I think it should be
Subject: Re: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?caf=E9?=
Villy Kruse
Andreas Prilop <andreas...@altavista.net> wrote:
>[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
>
>
>Some mail and news programs can produce 8-bit characters in the Subject.
>For example, let's assume
>
> Subject: café
>
>When I reply with PC-Pine 4.44 to such a message, I get the Subject
>
> Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_caf=E9?=
>
>This looks a bit strange. I think it should be
>
> Subject: Re: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?caf=E9?=
>
Either one is correct, as long as spaces are also encoded, either as
=20 or as underscore.
Villy
D. Stussy
>[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
>
>Some mail and news programs can produce 8-bit characters in the Subject.
>For example, let's assume
>
> Subject: café
>
>When I reply with PC-Pine 4.44 to such a message, I get the Subject
>
> Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_caf=E9?=
>
>This looks a bit strange. I think it should be
>
> Subject: Re: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?caf=E9?=
I think that the former is correct. If there is a change in character set, its
identity must come FIRST in the RHS, before any text.
Jeffrey Goldberg
in <slrna7en1...@pharmnl.ohout.pharmapartners.nl>:
> >When I reply with PC-Pine 4.44 to such a message, I get the Subject
> >
> > Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_caf=E9?=
> >
> >This looks a bit strange. I think it should be
> >
> > Subject: Re: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?caf=E9?=
>
> Either one is correct, as long as spaces are also encoded, either as
> =20 or as underscore.
Because the use of "Re: " is standard, there could be (or should be) MUAs
which render subjects begining with "Re: " in a local langauge.
Implementing such will be much more difficult with the latter "Re: " in
the scope of the munging then when it is outside. So, I share the
preference for the second option.
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings.
Tim Kynerd
<Pine.LNX.4.44.020224...@lehel.goldmark.private>, Jeffrey
Goldberg wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2002 Villy Kruse <v...@pharmnl.ohout.pharmapartners.nl> wrote
> in <slrna7en1...@pharmnl.ohout.pharmapartners.nl>:
>
>> >When I reply with PC-Pine 4.44 to such a message, I get the Subject
>> >
>> > Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_caf=E9?=
>> >
>> >This looks a bit strange. I think it should be
>> >
>> > Subject: Re: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?caf=E9?=
>>
>> Either one is correct, as long as spaces are also encoded, either as
>> =20 or as underscore.
>
> Because the use of "Re: " is standard, there could be (or should be) MUAs
> which render subjects begining with "Re: " in a local langauge.
I don't agree with that, because I've seen plenty of messages here in
Sweden, for example, with the subject preceded by "Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: SV:".
The problem is that if my mail client is set for English, and yours is set
for (say) Swedish, they tend not to recognize each other's versions of "Re:"
and so they prepend their own version. Every time. It gets pretty tiresome
looking for the actual subject in such a Subject: header line.
-snip-
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden t...@tram.nu
Sunrise in Stockholm today: 7:09
Sunset in Stockholm today: 16:53
My rail transit photos at http://www.kynerd.nu
Villy Kruse
Jeffrey Goldberg <{$news}$@goldmark.org> wrote:
>On Feb 23, 2002 Villy Kruse <v...@pharmnl.ohout.pharmapartners.nl> wrote
> in <slrna7en1...@pharmnl.ohout.pharmapartners.nl>:
>
>> >When I reply with PC-Pine 4.44 to such a message, I get the Subject
>> >
>> > Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_caf=E9?=
>> >
>> >This looks a bit strange. I think it should be
>> >
>> > Subject: Re: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?caf=E9?=
>>
>> Either one is correct, as long as spaces are also encoded, either as
>> =20 or as underscore.
>
>Because the use of "Re: " is standard, there could be (or should be) MUAs
>which render subjects begining with "Re: " in a local langauge.
>Implementing such will be much more difficult with the latter "Re: " in
>the scope of the munging then when it is outside. So, I share the
>preference for the second option.
>
When it becomes to rfc2047 encoding of header lines the Re: word isn't
important. The receiving mail client will decode the rfc2047 encoded
subject line to render the original "Subject: Re: café", and will then
deal with the Re: word at this stage.
Villy
Jeffrey Goldberg
in <slrna7ipe...@linux.local>:
> > Because the use of "Re: " is standard, there could be (or should be) MUAs
> > which render subjects begining with "Re: " in a local langauge.
>
> I don't agree with that, because I've seen plenty of messages here in
> Sweden, for example, with the subject preceded by "Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: SV:".
> The problem is that if my mail client is set for English, and yours is set
> for (say) Swedish, they tend not to recognize each other's versions of "Re:"
> and so they prepend their own version. Every time. It gets pretty tiresome
> looking for the actual subject in such a Subject: header line.
The problem you describe is very real. But the solution is what I
describe. The Swedish locale clients should (but don't) recognize and
produce "Re:" but may render it as "SV:". Unfortunately, that is not what
they do.
Jeffrey Goldberg
in <slrna7jr4...@pharmnl.ohout.pharmapartners.nl>:
> >Because the use of "Re: " is standard, there could be (or should be) MUAs
> >which render subjects begining with "Re: " in a local langauge.
> When it becomes to rfc2047 encoding of header lines the Re: word isn't
> important. The receiving mail client will decode the rfc2047 encoded
> subject line to render the original "Subject: Re: café", and will then
> deal with the Re: word at this stage.
I'm not sure that it is that simple. that would involve a two
transformation rendering process. But since the MUAs that do what I
describe are few and far between (anybody know of any?), I don't know how
to test.
Tim Kynerd
<Pine.LNX.4.44.020225...@lehel.goldmark.private>, Jeffrey
Goldberg wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2002 Tim Kynerd <t...@tram.nu> wrote
> in <slrna7ipe...@linux.local>:
>
>> > Because the use of "Re: " is standard, there could be (or should be) MUAs
>> > which render subjects begining with "Re: " in a local langauge.
>>
>> I don't agree with that, because I've seen plenty of messages here in
>> Sweden, for example, with the subject preceded by "Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: SV:".
>> The problem is that if my mail client is set for English, and yours is set
>> for (say) Swedish, they tend not to recognize each other's versions of "Re:"
>> and so they prepend their own version. Every time. It gets pretty tiresome
>> looking for the actual subject in such a Subject: header line.
>
> The problem you describe is very real. But the solution is what I
> describe. The Swedish locale clients should (but don't) recognize and
> produce "Re:" but may render it as "SV:". Unfortunately, that is not what
> they do.
Then I misunderstood your description. You meant that they should *display*
"Re:" as "SV:", but should actually use and recognize "Re:" in the headers.
That seems like the best solution, indeed.
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden t...@tram.nu
Sunrise in Stockholm today: 7:03
Sunset in Stockholm today: 16:58
Jeffrey Goldberg
in <slrna7mgt...@linux.local>:
> Then I misunderstood your description. You meant that they should *display*
> "Re:" as "SV:", but should actually use and recognize "Re:" in the headers.
> That seems like the best solution, indeed.
Yes. That is exactly what I meant. I just failed to explain it well.
Villy Kruse
Tim Kynerd <t...@tram.nu> wrote:
>
>Then I misunderstood your description. You meant that they should *display*
>"Re:" as "SV:", but should actually use and recognize "Re:" in the headers.
>That seems like the best solution, indeed.
>
IMHO Re: is not an abreviation to "Reply:", but to "Referring to:" and
with that interpretation you would also use Re: in Swedish.
Villy
Mark Crispin
> IMHO Re: is not an abreviation to "Reply:", but to "Referring to:" and
> with that interpretation you would also use Re: in Swedish.
"re:" is neither "Reply" nor "Referring to" nor any other English language
phrase. It is Latin; "res" (lit. "thing", = "in the matter of") and "in
re" (= "in the matter of", "concerning").
This is why the localization of "re:", by certain inferior mail programs,
is not only harmful (because it interferes with MUAs which try to prevent
"re-proliferation") but also silly.
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Eduardo Chappa
:) On 27 Feb 2002, Villy Kruse wrote:
:) > IMHO Re: is not an abreviation to "Reply:", but to "Referring to:"
:) > and with that interpretation you would also use Re: in Swedish.
:)
:) "re:" is neither "Reply" nor "Referring to" nor any other English
:) language phrase. It is Latin; "res" (lit. "thing", = "in the matter
:) of") and "in re" (= "in the matter of", "concerning").
According to "The American Heritage" dictionary, "Re" is an english word
which means "In reference to". It's pronounced as "Re" in "Read". The word
"Re" was used in communication (e.g. Business communication) before it was
used in e-mail, usually at the top of a letter, to indicate content, so in
another words, Re has the meaning of "subject" in e-mail. If it was not
used in e-mail in this way, it's probably because people started using it
for "Re"ply, where it nicely coincides with the other use of "Re".
No I don't believe that the reason why it is used in e-mail has anything
to do with Latin. People just needed to distinguish a reply from the
original message in a visual way. Otherwise, just because of the meaning
of the word, "Re" is also appropriate for the content of the Subject of
any message, and everyone knows that that's undesirable.
Mark Crispin
> According to "The American Heritage" dictionary, "Re" is an english word
> which means "In reference to".
You must not have read it very carefully, since I happen to have a copy of
that dictionary right here and it does not support your claim.
The full citation from The American Heritage Dictionary is:
2 _
re (re)
preposition
Concerning; in reference to; in the case of.
Latin, ablative of res, thing.
Note the last line, where it clearly states that the word is Latin.
The Internet email standard also defines "re:" as coming from Latin.
> The word
> "Re" was used in communication (e.g. Business communication) before it was
> used in e-mail, usually at the top of a letter, to indicate content, so in
> another words, Re has the meaning of "subject" in e-mail.
The business use of "re:" is derived from legal use, and hence from Latin;
most legal jargon is of Latin origin. However, "re:" in email has a
different meaning from "Subject:". It has had that distinct meaning since
the 1970s.
> If it was not used in e-mail in this way, it's probably because people
> started using it for "Re"ply, where it nicely coincides with the other
> use of "Re".
You are mistaken. I used email and developed email software in the 1970s.
I helped promulgated the "re:" standard.
The first program that generated "re:" had an "answer" command instead of
"reply". It was not until much later that "reply" became the more common
command. In the late 1970s, many programs had both commands.
Eduardo Chappa
:) On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
:) > According to "The American Heritage" dictionary, "Re" is an English
:) > word which means "In reference to".
:)
:) You must not have read it very carefully, since I happen to have a copy
:) of that dictionary right here and it does not support your claim.
:)
:) The full citation from The American Heritage Dictionary is:
:) 2 _
:) re (re)
:) preposition
:) Concerning; in reference to; in the case of.
:) Latin, ablative of res, thing.
Well, I don't see how that contradicts what I said. Now I thought that you
were making the point that the Latin word is "Res", no "Re". Also, I read
that definition a long time ago, I did not have the dictionary in front of
me, and I'm glad that we agree that it's English.
:) Note the last line, where it clearly states that the word is Latin.
Well, if the word in Latin is Res, then "Re" can't be Latin (or maybe it
is, and who knows if it means the same), it must be the English form
(therefore an English word) of a word taken from Latin.
:) The Internet email standard also defines "re:" as coming from Latin.
I agree with that claim, but that's a different sentence as to say that
"we use Re: because it's Latin", since it's not. Adoption of foreign words
by languages is very common. For example in Spanish we use the word
"Fútbol", for the sport called "Football" in English (they sound the same
when spoken), and yes, it's a Spanish word.
:) > The word "Re" was used in communication (e.g. Business communication)
:) > before it was used in e-mail, usually at the top of a letter, to
:) > indicate content, so in another words, Re has the meaning of
:) > "subject" in e-mail.
:)
:) The business use of "re:" is derived from legal use, and hence from
:) Latin; most legal jargon is of Latin origin. However, "re:" in email
:) has a different meaning from "Subject:". It has had that distinct
:) meaning since the 1970s.
I did not say that "Re" was not derived from Latin, I claimed that Re was
an English word. The words "Re" and "Subject" are synonyms, used in
different contexts. I can tell you hundreds of words that have a special
meaning in Math (like sequence for example), which are not necessarily
equivalent to their every day meaning. If "Subject" was chosen over "Re",
that was a matter of choice, but in practice they have the same meaning.
:) > If it was not used in e-mail in this way, it's probably because
:) > people started using it for "Re"ply, where it nicely coincides with
:) > the other use of "Re".
:)
:) You are mistaken. I used email and developed email software in the
:) 1970s. I helped promulgated the "re:" standard.
:)
:) The first program that generated "re:" had an "answer" command instead
:) of "reply". It was not until much later that "reply" became the more
:) common command. In the late 1970s, many programs had both commands.
I don't see how that contradicts my claim. Maybe you need to expand on
this claim, which sounds very interesting to me. I could learn something
new here.
Mark Crispin
> I'm glad that we agree that it's English.
No I do not agree with any such thing. An entry for a word in an English
language dictionary does not render that word into English.
A great many foreign language words, including Spanish words, can be found
in an English dictionary. That does not make those foreign words part of
the English language; rather, they are simply foreign language words that
are frequently used by English-speaking people.
For example, "matador" is found in any English dictionary. Nobody would
claim that the word is English.
We do have foreign-origin words which have become English words (for
example, "realize", "house"). The distinction between foreign words and
foreign origin loanwords may be difficult for a non-native speaker; but it
is a real difference.
> Well, if the word in Latin is Res, then "Re" can't be Latin (or maybe it
> is, and who knows if it means the same), it must be the English form
> (therefore an English word) of a word taken from Latin.
"re" is the ablative of "res". It is the same word.
Unlike English, Latin nouns change depending upon the case. Latin is
known for its plethora of cases, just as English is known for its paucity
of cases.
> I agree with that claim, but that's a different sentence as to say that
> "we use Re: because it's Latin", since it's not.
The email standards specifically state that "re:" is Latin.
> I did not say that "Re" was not derived from Latin, I claimed that Re was
> an English word.
You are mistaken, and I doubt that any native English speaker would agree
with you. Most native English speakers would (incorrectly) think that it
is an abbreviation for "regarding", but none would think that "re", by
itself, is an English word.
> The words "Re" and "Subject" are synonyms, used in
> different contexts.
You are mistaken here too.
"re" is a preposition meaning "in the matter of" or "concerning".
"subject", on the other hand, is a noun meaning "that of which a quality,
attribute, or relation may be affirmed or in which it may inhere". These
are two different definitions and different parts of speech.
Edo Chappa
:) On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
:) > I'm glad that we agree that it's English.
:)
:) No I do not agree with any such thing. An entry for a word in an English
:) language dictionary does not render that word into English.
I guess you are not going to agree (with anyone) that "Re" (with the
meaning attached as "in reference to") is a word in English.
:) For example, "matador" is found in any English dictionary. Nobody
:) would claim that the word is English.
That makes Matador now a word in English. Probably the obvious English
word for Matador (Killer) was too strong, so the word "Matador", which is
less strong had to be adopted, and makes it an English word too, with the
meaning coming from the Spanish word, spelled in the same way.
:) We do have foreign-origin words which have become English words (for
:) example, "realize", "house"). The distinction between foreign words
:) and foreign origin loanwords may be difficult for a non-native speaker;
:) but it is a real difference.
After they have been adopted, they become part of the language. The word
"Fax" is used is Spanish to refer the machine that you use to send papers
through a phone line. Yes, the name in Spanish of that machine is "Fax"
(local names may differ though).
:) > I agree with that claim, but that's a different sentence as to say that
:) > "we use Re: because it's Latin", since it's not.
:)
:) The email standards specifically state that "re:" is Latin.
Does that make that statement true?. I can give you a list of very
important famous books containing false statements, if you like.
:) > I did not say that "Re" was not derived from Latin, I claimed that Re
:) > was an English word.
:)
:) You are mistaken, and I doubt that any native English speaker would
:) agree with you. Most native English speakers would (incorrectly) think
:) that it is an abbreviation for "regarding", but none would think that
:) "re", by itself, is an English word.
Most people would not think of that, because they have never confronted
the issue. People don't use (very often) the word "Re", in their speech.
Why does it make less English?
:) "re" is a preposition meaning "in the matter of" or "concerning".
So you are saying that Re is an English word, which is a preposition.
I'm sad you did not reply about something you could have contributed and
told us about "Answer" and "Reply" and all that, instead you are engaging
in a discussion about "Re being Latin/English" and how wrong I am, and all
for nothing (nothing will change after the discussion is over). Could you
reconsider your last reply and tell us about "Answer" and "Reply",
please?, I find that more interesting than this discussion.
Thanks!
Tim Kynerd
<Pine.OSF.4.44.020227...@goedel3.math.washington.edu>,
Eduardo Chappa wrote:
> *** Mark Crispin (m...@CAC.Washington.EDU) wrote in comp.mail.pine today:
>
>:) On 27 Feb 2002, Villy Kruse wrote:
>:) > IMHO Re: is not an abreviation to "Reply:", but to "Referring to:"
>:) > and with that interpretation you would also use Re: in Swedish.
>:)
>:) "re:" is neither "Reply" nor "Referring to" nor any other English
>:) language phrase. It is Latin; "res" (lit. "thing", = "in the matter
>:) of") and "in re" (= "in the matter of", "concerning").
>
> According to "The American Heritage" dictionary, "Re" is an english word
> which means "In reference to". It's pronounced as "Re" in "Read". The word
> "Re" was used in communication (e.g. Business communication) before it was
> used in e-mail, usually at the top of a letter, to indicate content, so in
> another words, Re has the meaning of "subject" in e-mail. If it was not
> used in e-mail in this way, it's probably because people started using it
> for "Re"ply, where it nicely coincides with the other use of "Re".
I pronounce "re" the same as "ray" and always have. (I'm a native speaker
of English.) And it is long established that it comes from the Latin phrase
"in re," having frequently been shortened to "re:" in business
correspondence.
My Random House Unabridged, my Collins (which is British) and my
Merriam-Webster Collegiate (10th edition) *all* agree that "re" in this
sense comes from the Latin "re," the ablative of "res" meaning thing. The
American Heritage Dictionary needs to clean up its act.
>
> No I don't believe that the reason why it is used in e-mail has anything
> to do with Latin. People just needed to distinguish a reply from the
> original message in a visual way. Otherwise, just because of the meaning
> of the word, "Re" is also appropriate for the content of the Subject of
> any message, and everyone knows that that's undesirable.
There seems to me no reason to doubt that the "Re:" used in the Subject:
header is a direct descendant of the (Latin-derived) "Re:" so commonly seen
in business correspondence.
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden t...@tram.nu
Sunrise in Stockholm today: 7:01
Sunset in Stockholm today: 17:00
Eduardo Chappa
:) In article
:) <Pine.OSF.4.44.020227...@goedel3.math.washington.edu>,
:) Eduardo Chappa wrote:
:) > *** Mark Crispin (m...@CAC.Washington.EDU) wrote in comp.mail.pine
:) > today:
:) >
:) >:) On 27 Feb 2002, Villy Kruse wrote:
:) >:) > IMHO Re: is not an abreviation to "Reply:", but to "Referring
:) >:) > to:" and with that interpretation you would also use Re: in
:) >:) > Swedish.
:) >:)
:) >:) "re:" is neither "Reply" nor "Referring to" nor any other English
:) >:) language phrase. It is Latin; "res" (lit. "thing", = "in the
:) >:) matter of") and "in re" (= "in the matter of", "concerning").
:) >
:) > According to "The American Heritage" dictionary, "Re" is an english
:) > word which means "In reference to". It's pronounced as "Re" in
:) > "Read". The word "Re" was used in communication (e.g. Business
:) > communication) before it was used in e-mail, usually at the top of a
:) > letter, to indicate content, so in another words, Re has the meaning
:) > of "subject" in e-mail. If it was not used in e-mail in this way,
:) > it's probably because people started using it for "Re"ply, where it
:) > nicely coincides with the other use of "Re".
:)
:) I pronounce "re" the same as "ray" and always have. (I'm a native
:) speaker of English.)
Neither pronunciation nor spelling are standard in English. I got the same
information about pronunciation of the word Re from the Collins
dictionary, in which I read that in some parts of England, the
pronunciation of the word "Aunt" may sound as "Ant" for other native
speakers, so being a native speaker is not an authority by itself.
:) And it is long established that it comes from the Latin phrase "in
:) re," having frequently been shortened to "re:" in business
:) correspondence.
Cool, another version on the etymology of the word Re. Now we can enter
into the debate of which origin is the right one. Now, I wonder if we
should start crossposting this thread to other groups like comp.mail.misc,
or maybe some newsgroup more ad hoc to the subject.
:) My Random House Unabridged, my Collins (which is British) and my
:) Merriam-Webster Collegiate (10th edition) *all* agree that "re" in this
:) sense comes from the Latin "re," the ablative of "res" meaning thing.
:) The American Heritage Dictionary needs to clean up its act.
Well, it all depends on who the authority is. Apparently there's no such a
thing in English (there is one in Spanish), so just disqualifying one
source on the grounds that it does not agree with others is not a good
reason.
:) > No I don't believe that the reason why it is used in e-mail has
:) > anything to do with Latin. People just needed to distinguish a reply
:) > from the original message in a visual way. Otherwise, just because of
:) > the meaning of the word, "Re" is also appropriate for the content of
:) > the Subject of any message, and everyone knows that that's
:) > undesirable.
:)
:) There seems to me no reason to doubt that the "Re:" used in the
:) Subject: header is a direct descendant of the (Latin-derived) "Re:" so
:) commonly seen in business correspondence.
I never doubted that, or did I?
Tim Kynerd
<Pine.OSF.4.44.020227...@goedel2.math.washington.edu>, Edo
Chappa wrote:
> *** Mark Crispin (m...@CAC.Washington.EDU) wrote today:
>
>:) On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
>:) > I'm glad that we agree that it's English.
>:)
>:) No I do not agree with any such thing. An entry for a word in an English
>:) language dictionary does not render that word into English.
>
> I guess you are not going to agree (with anyone) that "Re" (with the
> meaning attached as "in reference to") is a word in English.
>
>:) For example, "matador" is found in any English dictionary. Nobody
>:) would claim that the word is English.
>
> That makes Matador now a word in English.
No, it's not that simple.
Fairly recently, I ran across an English-language song which used the phrase
"son et lumière." I found a definition in at least one of my
English-language dictionaries, but anybody who tried to tell me that makes
the phrase English will be suitably laughed out of town. It remains a
French phrase despite seeing occasional use in English.
-snip-
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden t...@tram.nu
Sunrise in Stockholm today: 6:58
Sunset in Stockholm today: 17:03
Jeffrey Goldberg
in <Pine.OSF.4.44.020227...@goedel2.math.washington.edu>:
> :) For example, "matador" is found in any English dictionary. Nobody
> :) would claim that the word is English.
>
> That makes Matador now a word in English. [...]
We are getting way off topic here. But I agree with MRC on this one.
Foreign words used in a language have a distinct status from other words
(even of foreign origin). Ultimately, the discussion will come down to
what it means for a word to be part of a lanuage. There are definitions
by which either of you are right.
So let me just say that foreign expressions have a certain je ne sais
quoi, but I don't know what it is.
Mark Crispin
> :) And it is long established that it comes from the Latin phrase "in
> :) re," having frequently been shortened to "re:" in business
> :) correspondence.
> Cool, another version on the etymology of the word Re. Now we can enter
> into the debate of which origin is the right one.
That isn't "another version". It's the same (and only) version.
I mentioned "in re" in my first message. That "re" is the same word as
"res", just a different part of speech (the ablative).
> :) My Random House Unabridged, my Collins (which is British) and my
> :) Merriam-Webster Collegiate (10th edition) *all* agree that "re" in this
> :) sense comes from the Latin "re," the ablative of "res" meaning thing.
> :) The American Heritage Dictionary needs to clean up its act.
> Well, it all depends on who the authority is.
All of the dictionaries (even American Heritage) say the same thing. The
only contrary claim is coming from you.
> :) There seems to me no reason to doubt that the "Re:" used in the
> :) Subject: header is a direct descendant of the (Latin-derived) "Re:" so
> :) commonly seen in business correspondence.
> I never doubted that, or did I?
It sure sounds like that's what you're doing. You even went to extreme of
contradicting me in public when I was trying to do user support.
Eduardo Chappa
:) On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
:)
:) > :) My Random House Unabridged, my Collins (which is British) and my
:) > :) Merriam-Webster Collegiate (10th edition) *all* agree that "re" in
:) > :) this sense comes from the Latin "re," the ablative of "res"
:) > :) meaning thing. The American Heritage Dictionary needs to clean up
:) > :) its act.
:) > Well, it all depends on who the authority is.
:)
:) All of the dictionaries (even American Heritage) say the same thing.
:) The only contrary claim is coming from you.
Yeah, I agree that all dictionaries say the same, so why someone said that
they did not?. But I never said that Re did not come from Latin. What is
my contrary claim?. I think that the disagreement is not about the meaning
of the word, but if it's English or not, and these statements make it look
like I even disagree on the origin of the word, which I don't.
By the way, proper quoting requires you to say that you removed part of my
paragraph. My paragraph explained the unique sentence of it that you
decide to quote. When you did that, you changed the context of my reply.
:) > :) There seems to me no reason to doubt that the "Re:" used in the
:) > :) Subject: header is a direct descendant of the (Latin-derived)
:) > :) "Re:" so commonly seen in business correspondence.
:) > I never doubted that, or did I?
:)
:) It sure sounds like that's what you're doing. You even went to extreme
:) of contradicting me in public when I was trying to do user support.
No, read my post again. I never claimed that "Res is not Latin".
By the way, not that you have never contradicted me in public (and I am
not talking about this thread), also while doing user support (and I was
right too!), and no I did not contradict you back, neither in public nor
privately. That should have taught you a lesson, but of course it did not.
I'm still waiting for your post about the answer and reply commands. I
hope you stop ignoring my request. I'm really looking forward to reading
it.
--
Eduardo
http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/pine/
Eduardo Chappa
:) >:) For example, "matador" is found in any English dictionary. Nobody
:) >:) would claim that the word is English.
:) >
:) > That makes Matador now a word in English.
:)
:) No, it's not that simple.
:)
:) Fairly recently, I ran across an English-language song which used the
:) phrase "son et lumière." I found a definition in at least one of my
:) English-language dictionaries, but anybody who tried to tell me that
:) makes the phrase English will be suitably laughed out of town. It
:) remains a French phrase despite seeing occasional use in English.
That means that one dictionary went out of it's way. Now the words we've
been discussing in this thread appear in all dictionaries.
Please quote my reasoning, and not only a sentence of it. I'd rather see a
discussion of why my reasoning is wrong than hearing an explanation of why
you disagree with one (as it appears above, unjustified) sentence.
Tim Kynerd
<Pine.OSF.4.44.020228...@goedel3.math.washington.edu>,
I didn't intend to present myself as an absolute authority (and I don't
think I implied that by any reasonable interpretation). Certainly different
dialects pronounce certain words differently, although I'd be surprised if
"re" was one of them. However, I didn't invent my pronunciation out of the
air; it's the standard pronunciation in my native variety of English,
regardless of what the American Heritage or any other dictionary says.
>
>:) And it is long established that it comes from the Latin phrase "in
>:) re," having frequently been shortened to "re:" in business
>:) correspondence.
>
> Cool, another version on the etymology of the word Re. Now we can enter
> into the debate of which origin is the right one. Now, I wonder if we
> should start crossposting this thread to other groups like comp.mail.misc,
> or maybe some newsgroup more ad hoc to the subject.
It's not "another version" at all. It's the same thing several people have
been trying to tell you.
>
>:) My Random House Unabridged, my Collins (which is British) and my
>:) Merriam-Webster Collegiate (10th edition) *all* agree that "re" in this
>:) sense comes from the Latin "re," the ablative of "res" meaning thing.
>:) The American Heritage Dictionary needs to clean up its act.
>
> Well, it all depends on who the authority is. Apparently there's no such a
> thing in English (there is one in Spanish), so just disqualifying one
> source on the grounds that it does not agree with others is not a good
> reason.
Generally, "majority rules" is a good principle in this kind of situation.
Additionally, it's been pointed out to you separately that the American
Heritage Dictionary actually *agrees* with that etymology.
>
>:) > No I don't believe that the reason why it is used in e-mail has
>:) > anything to do with Latin. People just needed to distinguish a reply
>:) > from the original message in a visual way. Otherwise, just because of
>:) > the meaning of the word, "Re" is also appropriate for the content of
>:) > the Subject of any message, and everyone knows that that's
>:) > undesirable.
>:)
>:) There seems to me no reason to doubt that the "Re:" used in the
>:) Subject: header is a direct descendant of the (Latin-derived) "Re:" so
>:) commonly seen in business correspondence.
>
> I never doubted that, or did I?
Of course you did:
>:) > No I don't believe that the reason why it is used in e-mail has
>:) > anything to do with Latin.
Taken directly from your previous paragraph I'd quoted immediately before.
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden t...@tram.nu
Sunrise in Stockholm today: 6:58
Sunset in Stockholm today: 17:03
Eduardo Chappa
Apologies for the long quoting, probably something can be cut, but I
thought that it was better to quote most of the relevant parts. This is
the only case where I find excusable to write before the quoted text. Feel
free to ignore this message is completely off-topic.
Thanks.
:) >:) >:) > IMHO Re: is not an abreviation to "Reply:", but to "Referring
:) >:) >:) > to:" and with that interpretation you would also use Re: in
:) >:) >:) > Swedish.
:) >:) >:)
:) >:) >:) "re:" is neither "Reply" nor "Referring to" nor any other
:) >:) >:) English language phrase. It is Latin; "res" (lit. "thing", =
:) >:) >:) "in the matter of") and "in re" (= "in the matter of",
:) >:) >:) "concerning").
:) >:) >
:) >:) > According to "The American Heritage" dictionary, "Re" is an
:) >:) > english word which means "In reference to". It's pronounced as
:) >:) > "Re" in "Read". The word "Re" was used in communication (e.g.
:) >:) > Business communication) before it was used in e-mail, usually at
:) >:) > the top of a letter, to indicate content, so in another words, Re
:) >:) > has the meaning of "subject" in e-mail. If it was not used in
:) >:) > e-mail in this way, it's probably because people started using it
:) >:) > for "Re"ply, where it nicely coincides with the other use of
:) >:) > "Re".
:) >:)
:) >:) I pronounce "re" the same as "ray" and always have. (I'm a native
:) >:) speaker of English.)
:) >
:) > Neither pronunciation nor spelling are standard in English. I got the
:) > same information about pronunciation of the word Re from the Collins
:) > dictionary, in which I read that in some parts of England, the
:) > pronunciation of the word "Aunt" may sound as "Ant" for other native
:) > speakers, so being a native speaker is not an authority by itself.
:)
:) I didn't intend to present myself as an absolute authority (and I don't
:) think I implied that by any reasonable interpretation). Certainly
:) different dialects pronounce certain words differently, although I'd be
:) surprised if "re" was one of them. However, I didn't invent my
:) pronunciation out of the air; it's the standard pronunciation in my
:) native variety of English, regardless of what the American Heritage or
:) any other dictionary says.
I did not intend to say say you were an authority, neither I tried to
imply that. I think you tried to use that argument by saying "I'm a native
speaker, I know better". Trust me, I've heard reasonings of this form,
many times in my life, and I will keep hearing them. You certainly decided
that one dictionary was wrong, the other right, simply because it agreed
with you, when you thought that one of them disagreed with you (now you
know that that's not true, but at the time you thought that way). I did
not create the pronunciation of any word in English, and certainly there
is no such a thing as a right pronunciation, so I did not say that you
were wrong about it, but your message made it look as I was wrong
pronouncing it the way I had suggested it was pronounced (which I took
from a dictionary). There's no such a thing as correct pronunciation and
in many cases correct spelling too.
By the way, if you are interested there's a word "re" which is pronounced
as "ray", which is the second note of the musical scale. Could it be that
you confused both words, or did not know that the same group of letters
(words) had two different pronunciations for two different words?. There
are more examples in English of that phenomenon (e.g. the verb "to lead",
and the Chemical Element "Lead").
:) >:) And it is long established that it comes from the Latin phrase "in
:) >:) re," having frequently been shortened to "re:" in business
:) >:) correspondence.
:) >
:) > Cool, another version on the etymology of the word Re. Now we can
:) > enter into the debate of which origin is the right one. Now, I wonder
:) > if we should start crossposting this thread to other groups like
:) > comp.mail.misc, or maybe some newsgroup more ad hoc to the subject.
:)
:) It's not "another version" at all. It's the same thing several people
:) have been trying to tell you.
I certainly failed to notice that somebody had told "in res" before (which
is my fault), I certainly did not remember it at the time, so I thought it
was something new. Hence my comment. Please don't jump all over me.
Pointing it out is enough.
As far as I understand the point in discussion has never been if "Re" came
or not from Latin, or where it came from (I have no idea why you and Mark
keep telling me that, when I have clearly stated that I do not disagree
with that), but the disagreement is in the fact if "Re" is English or not.
I say it is, Mark says it is not, and you seem to agree with Mark on that.
:) >:) My Random House Unabridged, my Collins (which is British) and my
:) >:) Merriam-Webster Collegiate (10th edition) *all* agree that "re" in
:) >:) this sense comes from the Latin "re," the ablative of "res" meaning
:) >:) thing. The American Heritage Dictionary needs to clean up its act.
:) >
:) > Well, it all depends on who the authority is. Apparently there's no
:) > such a thing in English (there is one in Spanish), so just
:) > disqualifying one source on the grounds that it does not agree with
:) > others is not a good reason.
:)
:) Generally, "majority rules" is a good principle in this kind of
:) situation. Additionally, it's been pointed out to you separately that
:) the American Heritage Dictionary actually *agrees* with that etymology.
Well, on that principle, the correct pronunciation of Re is the one that
most of the people use, the rest are wrong. I certainly don't think that
the principle applies quite as you put it. Even then, sometimes most of
the people say things in an incorrect way. If you do, be careful when
following that principle in language matters. I know people that swear
that they learnt the correct way by repeating what other people say, and
what they say is not correct.
I also insist, do not repeat something that that I do not disagree with.
It looks like I must not express myself clearly in English, because two
people keep telling me over and over the same thing, which I have already
stated several times.
Too strange. I hope you stop telling something we all know by now.
:) >:) > No I don't believe that the reason why it is used in e-mail has
:) >:) > anything to do with Latin. People just needed to distinguish a
:) >:) > reply from the original message in a visual way. Otherwise, just
:) >:) > because of the meaning of the word, "Re" is also appropriate for
:) >:) > the content of the Subject of any message, and everyone knows
:) >:) > that that's undesirable.
:) >:)
:) >:) There seems to me no reason to doubt that the "Re:" used in the
:) >:) Subject: header is a direct descendant of the (Latin-derived) "Re:"
:) >:) so commonly seen in business correspondence.
:) >
:) > I never doubted that, or did I?
:)
:) Of course you did:
No, I did not, read below.
:) >:) > No I don't believe that the reason why it is used in e-mail has
:) >:) > anything to do with Latin.
:)
:) Taken directly from your previous paragraph I'd quoted immediately
:) before.
In order for you to understand what I meant to say, maybe you should
"re"-read the same sentence with the word Latin replaced by, say,
Mapudungú. This is what you should not read in the above sentence:
- I did not say there that Re has nothing to do with Latin, because I am
talking about *the usage of Re in e-mail*, not about Re (the word)
- I did not say that Re does not come from Latin (same reason).
What I said was that the choice of the word Re has nothing to do with the
fact that it comes from Latin. It's an accident that it comes from Latin.
In another words, trying to argue that we use a word there because it's
Latin (or English derived from Latin, no matter how you want to see it) is
a poor reason. Otherwise, why don't we write all protocols in Latin?. I
hope you got it now.
Ok, go back to work. Have a nice day.
--
Eduardo
http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/pine/
Use....@to.invalid
http://www.use-net.ch/netiquette_engl.html
or something similar. It's not that I'm not interested in etymology of email
terms, but this is clearly turning into a discussion of who said what when
while quoting or not correctly quoting someone else. That's even more OT than
the etymology discussion in the first place.
Sebastian Jester
--
Please don't anti-spam mangle your email address:
http://www.imp-guide.f2s.com/usenet/mung.html
Tim Kynerd
Use....@to.invalid wrote:
> Please read
>
> http://www.use-net.ch/netiquette_engl.html
>
> or something similar. It's not that I'm not interested in etymology of email
> terms, but this is clearly turning into a discussion of who said what when
> while quoting or not correctly quoting someone else. That's even more OT than
> the etymology discussion in the first place.
Speaking of netcopping, why are you using an invalid E-mail address when
posting to Usenet?
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden t...@tram.nu
Sunrise in Stockholm today: 6:49
Sunset in Stockholm today: 17:10
Tim Kynerd
>
>:) >:) For example, "matador" is found in any English dictionary. Nobody
>:) >:) would claim that the word is English.
>:) >
>:) > That makes Matador now a word in English.
>:)
>:) No, it's not that simple.
>:)
>:) Fairly recently, I ran across an English-language song which used the
>:) phrase "son et lumière." I found a definition in at least one of my
>:) English-language dictionaries, but anybody who tried to tell me that
>:) makes the phrase English will be suitably laughed out of town. It
>:) remains a French phrase despite seeing occasional use in English.
>
> That means that one dictionary went out of it's way. Now the words we've
> been discussing in this thread appear in all dictionaries.
The phrase "son et lumière" appears in all three of my English-language
dictionaries. That doesn't make it English.
>
> Please quote my reasoning, and not only a sentence of it. I'd rather see a
> discussion of why my reasoning is wrong than hearing an explanation of why
> you disagree with one (as it appears above, unjustified) sentence.
I quoted what I wanted to respond to. This was in no way deceptive, as the
rest of your reasoning had nothing to do with your statement that finding
the word "matador" in an English-language dictionary makes it "now a word in
English." That was the point I wanted to respond to, and I did.
(For the record, I agree that "matador" is an English word, but not because
it appears in English-language dictionaries -- that doesn't prove anything.
The main reason I snipped the rest of your reasoning is that I agreed with
it. But not the specific point I responded to.)
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden t...@tram.nu
Sunrise in Stockholm today: 6:49
Sunset in Stockholm today: 17:10
Tim Kynerd
I quote:
"...[B]eing a native speaker is not an authority in itself."
If that's not what you meant, then I must confess I don't know what you did
mean.
> I think you tried to use that argument by saying "I'm a native
> speaker, I know better". Trust me, I've heard reasonings of this form,
> many times in my life, and I will keep hearing them.
You will indeed, because they have considerable merit. Rightly enough, the
native speakers of a language are always the best authorities on its grammar
and usage, particularly in the descriptive sense.
If native speakers of English tell you that a word isn't an English word,
you'd best listen. (If they don't agree, which is often the case, then
that's another story.)
> You certainly decided that one dictionary was wrong, the other right,
> simply because it agreed with you, when you thought that one of them
> disagreed with you (now you know that that's not true, but at the time you
> thought that way).
The etymology of "re" is something I've been familiar with for at least
twenty years, and having three separate dictionaries, compiled by different
lexicographers and published by different companies, agree with that
remembered etymology is, in my mind, strong evidence that it's correct. If
another dictionary has a different etymology, I'm inclined to be suspicious
of that etymology, absent good reason to believe the other dictionary.
> I did not create the pronunciation of any word in English, and certainly
> there is no such a thing as a right pronunciation, so I did not say that
> you were wrong about it, but your message made it look as I was wrong
> pronouncing it the way I had suggested it was pronounced (which I took
> from a dictionary). There's no such a thing as correct pronunciation and
> in many cases correct spelling too.
You're right about this. I should have phrased my response differently. I
didn't intend to imply that my pronunciation was the only correct one, but
only that the pronunciation given by the American Heritage Dictionary also
is not the only correct one.
>
> By the way, if you are interested there's a word "re" which is pronounced
> as "ray", which is the second note of the musical scale. Could it be that
> you confused both words, or did not know that the same group of letters
> (words) had two different pronunciations for two different words?. There
> are more examples in English of that phenomenon (e.g. the verb "to lead",
> and the Chemical Element "Lead").
No, I'm aware of both words and their different meanings, and I pronounce
them both "ray."
>
>:) >:) And it is long established that it comes from the Latin phrase "in
>:) >:) re," having frequently been shortened to "re:" in business
>:) >:) correspondence.
>:) >
>:) > Cool, another version on the etymology of the word Re. Now we can
>:) > enter into the debate of which origin is the right one. Now, I wonder
>:) > if we should start crossposting this thread to other groups like
>:) > comp.mail.misc, or maybe some newsgroup more ad hoc to the subject.
>:)
>:) It's not "another version" at all. It's the same thing several people
>:) have been trying to tell you.
>
> I certainly failed to notice that somebody had told "in res" before (which
> is my fault), I certainly did not remember it at the time, so I thought it
> was something new. Hence my comment. Please don't jump all over me.
> Pointing it out is enough.
Well, I don't really think I "jumped all over you." I'm sorry the
misunderstanding came up just because you happened to miss that previous
mention, which is easy to do.
>
> As far as I understand the point in discussion has never been if "Re" came
> or not from Latin, or where it came from (I have no idea why you and Mark
> keep telling me that, when I have clearly stated that I do not disagree
> with that), but the disagreement is in the fact if "Re" is English or not.
> I say it is, Mark says it is not, and you seem to agree with Mark on that.
Honestly, my perception of this word in this sense is that it's English.
It's been in use in English for a very long time, and I've never perceived
it as a foreign word, despite the clearly non-English pronunciation in my
dialect. I'm just trying to point out that you can't necessarily count on a
dictionary to guide you in these matters.
>
>:) >:) My Random House Unabridged, my Collins (which is British) and my
>:) >:) Merriam-Webster Collegiate (10th edition) *all* agree that "re" in
>:) >:) this sense comes from the Latin "re," the ablative of "res" meaning
>:) >:) thing. The American Heritage Dictionary needs to clean up its act.
>:) >
>:) > Well, it all depends on who the authority is. Apparently there's no
>:) > such a thing in English (there is one in Spanish), so just
>:) > disqualifying one source on the grounds that it does not agree with
>:) > others is not a good reason.
>:)
>:) Generally, "majority rules" is a good principle in this kind of
>:) situation. Additionally, it's been pointed out to you separately that
>:) the American Heritage Dictionary actually *agrees* with that etymology.
>
> Well, on that principle, the correct pronunciation of Re is the one that
> most of the people use, the rest are wrong. I certainly don't think that
> the principle applies quite as you put it. Even then, sometimes most of
> the people say things in an incorrect way. If you do, be careful when
> following that principle in language matters. I know people that swear
> that they learnt the correct way by repeating what other people say, and
> what they say is not correct.
Well, I was referring to the etymology, not the pronunciation. The
etymology is a matter of fact, whereas pronunciations differ between
language varieties.
>
> I also insist, do not repeat something that that I do not disagree with.
> It looks like I must not express myself clearly in English, because two
> people keep telling me over and over the same thing, which I have already
> stated several times.
>
> Too strange. I hope you stop telling something we all know by now.
Well, I haven't said it again this time, anyway (have I? I'm not sure I
know what you're referring to...)! ;-)
Well, to paraphrase you, "the reason it's used in E-mail has nothing to do
with Latin" is a much broader statement than "the choice of the word Re has
nothing to do with the fact that it comes from Latin." My sense was that it
came into use in E-mail directly from its use in business correspondence,
and that usage is directly from Latin, so its use in E-mail *does* have
something to do with Latin. It's just not that strong a connection. If you
mean that its Latin origin had nothing to do with why it was selected for
use in E-mail, you're most likely right.
>
> Ok, go back to work. Have a nice day.
You too.
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden t...@tram.nu
Sunrise in Stockholm today: 6:49
Sunset in Stockholm today: 17:10
Eduardo Chappa
I propose that we all sit down in a bar to have a beer and discuss this
issue as friends. I'm tired today, had a dentist appointment in the
morning which lasted for more than 2 hours, so let's leave the discussion
by e-mail up to this point. At least I'll do that.
If you want, you can bring your own dictionaries. :)
Cheers!
David Sewell
>In article <Pine.GSO.4.44.0203011126570.23036-100000@sun7>,
>Use....@to.invalid wrote:
>Speaking of netcopping, why are you using an invalid E-mail address when
>posting to Usenet?
He's not using an invalid email address; he's using an email address
with a top-level domain name that is, to quote RFC2606, "intended for
use in online construction of domain names that are sure to be invalid
and which it is obvious at a glance are invalid."
I.e., if you use a munged address like "dont...@this.is.invalid", you
have (1) a guarantee that a reply to that address will never be sent to
a legitimate host (and thereby possibly annoy a recipient), (2) a
reasonable expectation that a human being will recognize that the domain
is bogus, and (3) some hope that MUAs and newsreaders will implement a
feature that notifies you that you're trying to send email to an invalid
domain if you reply to such an address. (In fact this would be a nice
feature for Pine to have.)
Ref: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2606.html
DS
--
David Sewell, University of Virginia
dr...@virginia.invalid (replace "invalid" with "edu" to reply by email!)
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~drs2n/
Mark Crispin
> He's not using an invalid email address; he's using an email address
> with a top-level domain name that is, to quote RFC2606, "intended for
> use in online construction of domain names that are sure to be invalid
> and which it is obvious at a glance are invalid."
If you actually read RFC 2606, you will find that this document discusses
reserved top-level and second-level domain names for the purposes of
testing or writing documentation.
It is a remarkable leap of false logic to use RFC 2606 as sanction for the
inane practice of using fake email addresses in news postings.
Use....@to.invalid
about me. But the discussion lives on, so I have to reply here as well. I
apologise in advance: this is a long post (longer than one screenful) and not
really on-topic for comp.mail.pine, but right now I am too tired to dig for
the right news group to take discussions there.
The point is that I am using an invalid from: BUT I have provided a valid
reply-to:. When I use a valid from: in newsgroups postings, I get lots of spam
a few days later.
Now, at first I used a "jesterRE...@domain.name" type from: address to
avoid spam from news groups postings. Then I thought "why should I trouble
people who I am asking to help me with editing my email address by hand when
replying to me?" So I changed back to my correct from: header.
And was annoyed by spam again.
Then I found a website (apparently now offline, so I can't link to it) which
suggested using .invalid as email domain and a valid reply-to: This made sense
to me. I actually didn't get spam after each news group posting any more. pine
shows the reply-to: when I read news and offers replying to reply-to: instead
of from: So everyone is happy (I thought): I don't get spam, but I do get
replies.
The only place where reply-to: doesn't show up is google groups - but even
there it does when you look at the full message. Now that's sort of back to
the problem of people having to do some editing when they want to reply to me
- and I don't know what to do about it. I just don't want my email address to
appear in a mailto: link on google groups.
Now, Mark Crispin wrote in
<Pine.NXT.4.50.020307...@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>
>It is a remarkable leap of false logic to use RFC 2606 as sanction for the
>inane practice of using fake email addresses in news postings.
I take it he knows RFC 2606 which I admit I don't - I don't even know what
that combination of letters means. It seems that whoever wrote the website
which gave me the idea to use .invalid didn't know RFC 2606 either. I just
believed him that using .invalid is good, in the way described by David
Seawell in <a68l9b$hfl$1...@mothership.upress.Virginia.EDU> I might read RFC 2606
one day to find out for myself. .invalid and reply-to: seemed a better idea
than any other way to mungle my from: addres
But I disagree that using a fake email address is "inane" as long as there is
a way to work out a valid return address - such as reply-to or REMOVE-ME.
If anything or anyone does convince me that it *is* inane, or that using
.invalid is an invalid practice (apologies for the pun), I will stop posting
to newsgroups.
Is .invalid + reply-to: inane?
Sebastian Jester
--
Don't want spam from posting to newsgroups?
Mungle your addres, use .invalid as from: domain and provide a valid reply-to:
Olaf Skibbe
> Then I found a website (apparently now offline, so I can't link to it) which
> suggested using .invalid as email domain and a valid reply-to:
There are many sites with this suggestion, but there are also many people
in newsgroups, who do not like this for two reasons:
- the invalid address could belong to someone else (now or in future) who
will be annoyed by replys to your postings
- nobody should post anonymous. This is AFAIK to avoid unpolite behavior.
It is recommended to get an email account which you read never or rarely
for the "from:" and to put in a valid "reply to:" address which you read
frequently.
I do not see why someone should not be able to post anonymously while
using valid addresses, and no one ever will use email addresses with
toplevel domains like ".invalid", but especially in german NGs (e.g.
kassel.test) you will find people who insist on the so called
"nettiquette". I found it easier to follow...
Greetings
Olaf
David Sewell
Mark Crispin <m...@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:
>If you actually read RFC 2606, you will find that this document discusses
>reserved top-level and second-level domain names for the purposes of
>testing or writing documentation.
>
>It is a remarkable leap of false logic to use RFC 2606 as sanction for the
>inane practice of using fake email addresses in news postings.
Maybe, but it's a practice that, albeit grudgingly, the current IETF
draft on Usenet article format allows for, false logic or no; from
Section 5.2 on the "From" header:
The mailbox in the From-content SHOULD be a valid address, belonging
to the poster(s) of the article, or person or agent on whose behalf
the post is being sent (see the Sender-header, 6.2). When, for
whatever reason, the poster does not wish to include such an
adddress, the From-content SHOULD then be an address which ends in
the top level domain of ".invalid" [RFC 2606]
(http://www.landfield.com/usefor/drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-article-06.01.unpaged)
That being the case, I think it's legitimate to express a philosophical
antipathy toward address-munging, while at the same time respecting the
right to an individual decision to follow the practice recommended in
the second sentence quoted above.
Sebastian Jester
> Use....@to.invalid wrote:
>
> > Then I found a website (apparently now offline, so I can't link to it) which
> > suggested using .invalid as email domain and a valid reply-to:
>
> There are many sites with this suggestion, but there are also many people
> in newsgroups, who do not like this for two reasons:
>
> - the invalid address could belong to someone else (now or in future) who
> will be annoyed by replys to your postings
>
> - nobody should post anonymous. This is AFAIK to avoid unpolite behavior.
I do not understand in what way the points you raise should persuade me to
change what I am doing:
- The invalid address I use will never ever belong to annyone, because
.invalid was set aside for certain purposes (even though those purposes may
not have been what I use .invalid for).
- I am not posting anonymously. My name is in every posting, the reply-to is
valid, and you can even find me instantly with google. My from: address tells
people how to contact me.
What's the point in having a *valid* from: if I'm never going to read mail
arriving at that account? Some people will send replies there anyway, and all
the spam that is sent to that from: account takes up bandwidth of users of
nexgo.de, hotmail.com, yahoo.com or whatever I would use. .invalid also
generates unwanted traffic (or maybe it doesn't? see below), but then at least
the spammer has to deal with the returned email and not some innocent victim.
Here's what the IETF draft on Usenet article format
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-usefor-article-06.txt says
about .invalid (see also David Sewell's post
<a6aiva$itd$1...@mothership.upress.Virginia.EDU>):
NOTE: Since such addresses ending in ".invalid" are
undeliverable, user agents Ought to warn any user attempting to
reply to them and Ought Not, in any case, to attempt to deliver
to them (since that would be pointless anyway). Whether or not
a valid address can subsequently be extracted from such an
address falls outside the scope of this standard (though it
would be pointless to use a disguise so easily penetrable).
So I'll stick to what I am doing, but include my full name in the from:
header just to make it obvious to those who shout "netiquette! anonymous
posting!" before reading to the end of my post or fail to read my from:
address or fail to see the reply-to: that I am not posting anonymously. And
yes, I'll continue to encourage others to do the same because I, too, am
annoyed by completely anonymous postings with no return address.
BTW, pine happily let me reply to myself at use....@to.invalid - I am
waiting to see whether sendmail tried to deliver the message as well.
Sebastian Jester
--
Don't want spam from posting to newsgroups?
Mung your addres, use .invalid as from: domain and provide a valid reply-to: