Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id MAA05725; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:50:33 -0400
X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:50:31 EDT
Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Received: from po4.andrew.cmu.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id MAA05708; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:50:29 -0400
Received: (from postman@localhost) by po4.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01392 for drums@cs.utk.edu; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:50:06 -0400
Received: via switchmail; Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:50:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/testq0/QF.Ak5wBiu00WBw80ZHYa>;
          Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:48:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr7/jm36/.Outgoing/QF.ok5wBfe00WBwMAHSQZ>;
          Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:48:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from BatMail.robin.v2.14.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4c.411
          via MS.5.6.hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4c_411;
          Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:48:41 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4k5wBd_00WBw8AHSF0@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 12:48:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@CMU.EDU>
To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: Format of In-Reply-To and References
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950727170032.11999B-100000@ester>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950727170032.11999B-100000@ester>
Beak: Is

The way I would word it in the new specification would be to deprecate
any use of References: that does not match <insert RFC 1036 wording,
minus the trimming requirement>.

Parsers would still have to deal with a References: containing a
phrase, but since there already exists software which generates them
this cannot be helped.  I suspect that the number of senders
generating References: which do not fit the semantic requirements of
1036 is negligible, if not nonexistant.

-- 
_.John G. Myers		Internet: jgm+@CMU.EDU
			LoseNet:  ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up