You, Jesse, are a moron.

From: Jeff Relf (Jeff_Relf__at__NCPlus.NET.Invalid)
Date: 07/31/04 

Date: 31 Jul 2004 01:35:39 GMT

Hi Jesse F. Hughes,

Re: RFC 1036 ( and plain good manners ),

I implore you... Nay, I _ Beg _ you
  to read the following RFC very carefully,

Please note the SHOULD and MUST keywords.

>From http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1036.html <<
  2.1.4. Subject
    The " Subject " line ( formerly " Title " )
    tells what the message is about.
    It should be suggestive enough of
    the contents of the message to enable a reader
    to make a decision whether to read the message
    based on the subject alone.
    If the message is submitted in response to
    another message ( e.g., is a follow-up )
    the default subject should begin with
    the four characters "Re: ",
    and the " References " line is required. >>

>From http://www.usenet-fr.net/fr-chartes/son-of-rfc1036.2.html
<< If the article is a followup,
  the subject SHOULD begin with "Re: "
  ( a " back reference " ). >>

So the term, " back reference " refers to
  the " Re: " tag at the start of a title,
  and Not to the References line.

  And the word used was SHOULD, not MUST.

  So Google.COM is in violation of RFC 1036.

>From http://www.usenet-fr.net/fr-chartes/son-of-rfc1036.2.html
<< If the poster determines that
  the topic of the followup differs significantly
  from what is described in the subject,
  a new, more descriptive, subject SHOULD be substituted
  ( With No Back Reference ). >>
    ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^

_ SHOULD _ Have No Back Reference... Get it ?

 SHOULD not use "Re: " at the start of a title.

 SHOULD not use "Re: " at the start of a title.

 SHOULD not use "Re: " at the start of a title.

 The title SHOULD reflect the contents of the messsage.

And no, that does Not mean that
  the References line should be deleted.

So, prior to my complaints, all posters in this thread
  violated RFC 1036 by not providing appropriate titles.

You say otherwise... So you, Jesse, are a moron.

>From that same link, << If the article is not a followup,
  the subject MUST not begin with a back reference. >>
  ...
<< An article whose subject begins with a back reference
  MUST have a References header referencing the precursor. >>

Right, _ MUST Not _, I always comply with that.

  I never start a title with "Re: "
  without also providing a References line.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: urllib interpretation of URL with ".."
    ... or by avoiding traversal of the reference. ... The common practice seems to be for client-side implementations to ... Note that RFC 3986 obsoletes RFC 2396, ... good practice re generic URL syntax (URI and relative reference ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • _ SHOULD _ Have No Back Reference.
    ... I will now use this RFC to shut people up ... " back reference " refers to ... So Google.COM is in violation of RFC 1036. ... So every last poster in this thread ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: integration between struts and servlet auth
    ... My reference is RFC 1855, ... > ok, I don't have any RFC to refer to, .. ... You can refer to the same one. ... Andrew Thompson ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • You are in violation of RFC 1036.
    ... " Re: The ultimate luxury? ... " back reference " refers to ... So Google.COM is also in violation of RFC 1036. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: rules for MX records
    ... Cnews-ms wrote: ... > Can I point my MX record to an alias or should I use an A record. ... > there an RFC to reference?? ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.dns)