Am 19.11.2009, 18:00 Uhr, schrieb Gary Johnson <garyjohn@xxxxxxxxxx>:
On 2009-11-19, Bertrand Yvain <pnl@xxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi, please consider this patch that adds a boolean configuration option, reply_prefix. When turned off, the "Re: " prefix will not be added to the subject of a reply, unless the subject was empty.As someone pointed out in another thread, maybe in mutt-users, mutt's hard-coded "Re: " is not very international. Perhaps a better way to handle this would be to make 'reply_prefix' a string option defaulting to "Re: ". Then you could have the behavior you want by setting it to an empty string and others could customize it with, for example, "Aw: ".
Which is annoying, bad practice, and should be in the criminal code with a minimum penalty of 1 year (use) or 5 years (localizing it).
I really do not want to see Re: AW: R: Re: AW: RÃp: AW: Re: subject, and this is exactly what will happen. People who cannot be bothered to accept that Re: is a fixed string and token deserve to be kept away from mail.
In what situation do you not want the subject of your reply to begin with "Re: " or your national language equivalent?
There is no situation where deviation from IETF standards would be acceptable. Local hacks aren't for public consumption.
-- Matthias Andree