_ SHOULD _ Have No Back Reference.

From: Jeff Relf (Jeff_Relf__at__NCPlus.NET.Invalid)
Date: 07/29/04 

Date: 29 Jul 2004 22:22:11 GMT

Hi Jesse F. Hughes,

Re: Your RFC 1036 citation,

I can't thank you enough Jesse,

  I will now use this RFC to shut people up
  whenever they complain about my title changes.
  
I will also use it to prove that
  Google.COM is in violation of RFC 1036.

Note: in these RFCs the word SHOULD ( when capitalized )
  and the word MUST ( also when capitalized )
  have very specific meanings.

>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 ?

 That means no "Re: " tag at the start of a title.
 ( It does Not mean no References line )

So every last poster in this thread ( with the exception of me )
  violated this RFC by not providing an appropriate title.

>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)
  • 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)
  • You, Jesse, are a moron.
    ... " back reference " refers to ... So Google.COM is in violation of RFC 1036. ... << If the poster determines that ... violated RFC 1036 by not providing appropriate titles. ...
    (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)