[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: "Re:" (was Networking with other PC)

> > > Is there anything wrong in putting a prefix "RE"
> > > usually letters or emails had this in front of a subject.
> > > 
> I think that a point the OP missed is that messages are threaded by
> means of a (usually hidden) message header line, not the Subject: line.
> So when you reply to a message, even if you change the Subject line,
> your message will be displayed in the same thread as the message you
> reply to. Which is not what you want if you are raising a new point.

Many of us have been on-line for several years before picking up on this.

Many of the web archives will re-start the thread if the subject line
changes, which helps in the view but not in the education.

> > The prefix "RE" is used as an abbreviation for "Reply".
> > A reply can only be made, if there has been a message earlier, that
> > you are replying to.
> > 
> I always heard that RE was shorthand for "In Reference To" or
> "concerning".

In the e-mail subject headers I think it is usually understood to mean
reply, whereas in office or legal documents it will be "in reference to".

(You can reference without replying.)

The actual usage is of course, not cast in stone.

> > Since you started a new thread, it`s definitely not a reply to someone
> > elses messages. Thus, the prefix "RE" is inappropriate.
> > 
> Same comment, no matter exactly what RE means.

(Noting that there are times when it is legitimate to change the subject
line and leave the references headers intact, and even times when it is
semantically correct to enter the "Re:" in the subject line by hand.)

But, yeah, it can be a bit of an eyesore to see a thread start with "Re:",
and it can be frustrating to scan a thread back looking for the top and
not finding a post without the "Re:"

(And I'm being verbose again. Back to work.)

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]