[OT] Standard news/mail headers

[Alan]

I can't find this information anywhere, so there may be no standards or
specs on it. I'm wanting to know if there are any abbreviations other
than Re: and Fwd: that might be prepended to the Subject header of a
post. I'm wanting to write a header parsing routine and need to be able
to distinguish what may have been added to an original Subject header.

thanks for any info.

 

[NorTel]

any abbreviations other than Re: and Fwd:

I use XNews and checked to see if this is a customization item
-- it is not, at least that I can find. But I'm sure I've used a
newsreader that permitted selection of the prefix to use (e.g.,
"RE:") in the subject line of a reply.

If you have access to the headers, you could use one of them to
determine that it is a reply to a prior message.

PERL users have shared dozens of routines to access an NNTP
server directly, giving you access to every header of every
message. That would give you maximum flexibility.

 

[Alan]

I use XNews and checked to see if this is a customization item
-- it is not, at least that I can find. But I'm sure I've used a
newsreader that permitted selection of the prefix to use (e.g.,
"RE:") in the subject line of a reply.

Hmmm... this is why I am interested in any standards or recommended
practices, so that I can deal only with the "official" prefixes.

If you have access to the headers, you could use one of them to
determine that it is a reply to a prior message.

PERL users have shared dozens of routines to access an NNTP
server directly, giving you access to every header of every
message. That would give you maximum flexibility.

Thanks, but this is for an archiving exercise, using extracted offline
copies of posts. The idea is to actually strip the re: fwd: etc.
prefixes so that mails & posts "fall out" grouped together, by Subject.
I really need a list of "approved" prefixes for this method to work.
Thanks.

 

[Alan]

OT and many other things of all formats. Maybe reading the message ID
and references will be better to keep even varying but related
subjects together?

<snip>

I was really only interested in the semi-officially recognised ones,
like those a mail program might prepend. Obviously there's no control
over how *people* might alter the Subject header, hence some obvious
limitations in the method I'm considering.

I really love that tagline! It's the basis of a totally new outlook on
life. I might need to get out more...

I picked it up because it was meant to be an insult to the way engineers
think (my "first" profession). I like it too for some odd reason

 

[REMbranded]

" Alan" <[email protected]> wrote:

I can't find this information anywhere, so there may be no standards or
specs on it. I'm wanting to know if there are any abbreviations other
than Re: and Fwd: that might be prepended to the Subject header of a
post. I'm wanting to write a header parsing routine and need to be able
to distinguish what may have been added to an original Subject header.

OT and many other things of all formats. Maybe reading the message ID
and references will be better to keep even varying but related
subjects together?

ie:

Calypso Email
OT: Calypso Email
O.T. Calypso Email
(OT) Calypso Email
(O.T.) : Calypso Email

SPAM: Calypso Email

(WRONG GROUP!) Calipso Email

Spyware? was (O.T. Calypso Email)

I prefer to add anything extra to the end of the subject myself and
keep varying threads grouped together alphabetically.

People have differing preferences though and you might get most
anything appended to the beginning of the subject, or a complete new
subject dealing with the same thing.

« Optimist or pessimist aside, the glass is clearly twice as big as it
needs to be. »

I really love that tagline! It's the basis of a totally new outlook on
life. I might need to get out more...

 

[badgolferman]

<snip>

I was really only interested in the semi-officially recognised ones,
like those a mail program might prepend. Obviously there's no control
over how *people* might alter the Subject header, hence some obvious
limitations in the method I'm considering.


I picked it up because it was meant to be an insult to the way
engineers think (my "first" profession). I like it too for some odd
reason

As a recovered alcoholic, I would say the glass is not empty enough.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 00:29:43 +1000, " Alan"

Hi Alan,

I can't find this information anywhere, so there may be no standards or
specs on it. I'm wanting to know if there are any abbreviations other
than Re: and Fwd: that might be prepended to the Subject header of a
post. I'm wanting to write a header parsing routine and need to be able
to distinguish what may have been added to an original Subject header.

thanks for any info.

This link might help you to find the right RFC and/or check RFCs that
might be referenced in this thread.

http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/cs/Services/rfc/index.html


Regards, John.

--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/

 

[Alan]

As a recovered alcoholic, I would say the glass is not empty enough.

I'd think that would depend upon the proposed method by which it is
going to be ultimately emptied. ;-) Engineer-think again I'm afraid!

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Blinky the Shark wrote:

<snip details>

Thanks for that info. It appears that the only recognized one is Re: and
it would seem that many mail programs make up their own e.g. Fwd:

Which wouldn't be covered by 1036 anyhoo, as it's about Usenet. I don't
offhand know the RFC for mail, as I did for news.

True, but this will have to fall into the dark realms of "beyond our
control" unfortunately.

That was my conclusion. Kind of like

[]-->>> "creative" attribution from Usenet idjits.

 

[Spacey Spade]

I can't find this information anywhere, so there may be no standards or
specs on it. I'm wanting to know if there are any abbreviations other
than Re: and Fwd: that might be prepended to the Subject header of a
post. I'm wanting to write a header parsing routine and need to be able
to distinguish what may have been added to an original Subject header.

thanks for any info.

Here's part of an email I got from Arthur Hoogervorst:

[snip]
[Did you know that I wrote a complete new subject parser to do that
'correctly'? Roland just had to copy and paste my code <g>. The same for
parsing that 'Hoogervorst, Arthur <ahoogerxxxxxx>' format: which is:

http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-
bin/viewcvs.cgi/roundabout/Phoenix%20Main/ParserSup.pas?rev=1.4&content-
type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup

http://snurl.com/1nwb

(look for procedure HeaderAddressToStringList(S : string; SL : StringList);
That function (plus the other one for the Re numbering (NumberReplies, in
same unit) is called a 'finite state machine' [see the defined states in
the variable EmailMode). It's one of the most elegant solutions to 'text
parsing' problems. Neat, if I read the code back <g>. So, next time a
programmer tells you about a 'state machine' he programmed you point them
to there.

 

[Alan]

I can't find this information anywhere, so there may be no standards
or specs on it. I'm wanting to know if there are any abbreviations
other than Re: and Fwd: that might be prepended to the Subject
header of a post. I'm wanting to write a header parsing routine and
need to be able to distinguish what may have been added to an
original Subject header.

thanks for any info.

Here's part of an email I got from Arthur Hoogervorst:

[snip]
[Did you know that I wrote a complete new subject parser to do that
'correctly'? Roland just had to copy and paste my code <g>. The same
for parsing that 'Hoogervorst, Arthur <ahoogerxxxxxx>' format: which
is:

http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-
bin/viewcvs.cgi/roundabout/Phoenix%20Main/ParserSup.pas?rev=1.4&content-
type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup

http://snurl.com/1nwb

(look for procedure HeaderAddressToStringList(S : string; SL :
StringList); That function (plus the other one for the Re numbering
(NumberReplies, in same unit) is called a 'finite state machine' [see
the defined states in the variable EmailMode). It's one of the most
elegant solutions to 'text parsing' problems. Neat, if I read the
code back <g>. So, next time a programmer tells you about a 'state
machine' he programmed you point them to there.

Whew boy! Did you say comprehensive? This must cover darn near
everything. The requirements for mine are rather simpler, and mine will
no doubt be more easily tripped up than using a routine like this. But
thanks for the code - I'll be archiving it along with all the rest of
the good code I've collected over the years.

cheers

 

[Spacey Spade]

I can't find this information anywhere, so there may be no standards
or specs on it. I'm wanting to know if there are any abbreviations
other than Re: and Fwd: that might be prepended to the Subject
header of a post. I'm wanting to write a header parsing routine and
need to be able to distinguish what may have been added to an
original Subject header.

thanks for any info.

Here's part of an email I got from Arthur Hoogervorst:

[snip]
[Did you know that I wrote a complete new subject parser to do that
'correctly'? Roland just had to copy and paste my code <g>. The same
for parsing that 'Hoogervorst, Arthur <ahoogerxxxxxx>' format: which
is:

http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-
bin/viewcvs.cgi/roundabout/Phoenix%20Main/ParserSup.pas?rev=1.4&content-
type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup

http://snurl.com/1nwb

(look for procedure HeaderAddressToStringList(S : string; SL :
StringList); That function (plus the other one for the Re numbering
(NumberReplies, in same unit) is called a 'finite state machine' [see
the defined states in the variable EmailMode). It's one of the most
elegant solutions to 'text parsing' problems. Neat, if I read the
code back <g>. So, next time a programmer tells you about a 'state
machine' he programmed you point them to there.

Whew boy! Did you say comprehensive? This must cover darn near
everything. The requirements for mine are rather simpler, and mine will
no doubt be more easily tripped up than using a routine like this. But
thanks for the code - I'll be archiving it along with all the rest of
the good code I've collected over the years.

AFAIK, the parser is only a small portion of the code on that page.