Talk:List of email subject abbreviations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

title and content[edit]

This page does not have an article format. There is no discussion of the subject matter. The page should be renamed to the common WP list format: List of something. However, just what this 'something' is needs to be clarified. It appears to have digresses far from the suspected original intent and has deteriorated into a list of Internet, email, or instant messaging slang, i.e. netspeak. Kbrose (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Iteration of Reply[edit]

In the discussion of RE, the syntax for iteration should be described. This is my understanding.
A: Subject: <blah>.
B: Subject: RE: <blah>.
A: Subject: RE(2): <blah>.
B: Subject: RE: RE(2): <blah>.
A: Subject: RE(3): <blah>.
B: Subject: RE: RE(3): <blah>.

Can anyone correct or confirm this? Is it in an RFC? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

SIM, N/T, and others.[edit]

It would probably be better to have all of these abbreviations, that mean the message is in the subject line with a blank body, in a single line.

Like, EOM (End of Message), SIM (Subject is Message), N/T (No Text), {and others}: The entire message is in the subject... {rest of definition}
End of Message {and so on} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatonom (talkcontribs) 04:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

+1 for adding EOM ebertek (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Netiquette is not encyclopedic[edit]

I love this type of article at WP, but it is not encyclopedic; it's mostly netiquette. Since when did WP start serving as a repository for such material? tbc (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Formatting / stylistic conventions do not meet the definition for what I consider "Netiquette" ... Compared to Wiktionary's Appendix:English_internet_slang I'd consider this "just barely" more encyclopedic... This article is talking mostly about well-established stuff like "Re:" in an email reply which is not a random neologism or some sort of trendy subject which might otherwise vanishing in the next 5-10 years. Let's leave the article for now to see if it improves any during the next 5-10 years? --Kuzetsa (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Latin "res" is the original etymology for using "Re: " in a reply[edit]

If someone has time / in case I forget, here's a citation: rfc2822 -- (quote) The "Subject:" field is the most common and contains a short string identifying the topic of the message. When used in a reply, the field body MAY start with the string "Re: " (from the Latin "res", in the matter of) (end quote) I don't have time right now to add this. If anyone else has time, the "cite IETF" template has an appropriate mode for RFC which I recently used here: PPS, section: "PPS (Pulse per second) timing use" --Kuzetsa (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Is FW standard?[edit]

FW is listed unter standard abbreviations, but there is no reference to any standards document that specifies it. I think that's because there is none. AFAIK, FW is just common, not standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meillo (talkcontribs) 05:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)