🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <16u9onINNdip@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:

   I believe this is intentional.  Some of us don't believe that the "Re:" is
   necessary.  If you sort messages by subject, this keeps the original and
   its replies together.  The In-Reply-To field is enough to indicate that a
   message is a reply; why do you feel "Re:" is also necessary?

Humm.... If it is a matter of taste or belief, why should it imposed on every-
one? Personally, I prefer to have the subject prepended by a "Re: ". More than
one mail reader can give you a list with only the author of the mail and the
subject. There is often no presentation of the In-Reply-To field in such a
list.

I personally feel that something like this should be made an option for the
user, not something hardcoded deep in the source...

Comments?
--
!+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++!
! Richard Levitte, System manager       ! tel: int+46-8-790 64 23           !
! Royal Institute of Technology         ! fax: int+46-8-791 76 54           !
! Department of Teletransmition Theory  ! Internet: richard@ttt.kth.se      !
! S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden            !                                   !
!---------------------------------------------------------------------------!