El Sun, 07 Apr 2024 15:00:35 +0000, Paul Carmichael escribió:

> El Sun, 07 Apr 2024 14:57:57 +0000, Paul Carmichael escribió:
>
>> El Sat, 06 Apr 2024 19:45:46 +1100, Peter Moylan escribió:
>>
>>> On 06/04/24 19:19, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>>>> El Sat, 06 Apr 2024 08:15:15 +0000, Paul Carmichael escribió:
>>>>
>>>>> https://wibble.paulc.es/aue/sig.png
>>>>>
>>>>> (it's a picture of what I see).
>>>>
>>>> This is weird: https://wibble.paulc.es/aue/sig2.png
>>>>
>>>> It seems Pan strips the text leaving only the url.
>>>
>>> Interesting. This is a major distortion of what my signature says. It
>>> sounds as if Pan is seriously buggy.
>>
>> I've registered the bug in Git.
>
>
> One more thing - I'm going to remove the link from this sig

Oops. Nothing. So I'm not seeing sigs at all. Except when there is a url
and that's all I see.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es

* Paul Wolff <ze4pefP5YoEmFA0$@wolff.co.uk> :
Wrote on Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:40:41 +0100:

> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024, at 07:12:58, Madhu posted:
>>Was it ever the style in formal business letters to use "Sub:" in a
>>similar way?
> I don't recall anything like "Sub:" as a heading in a letter. What is
> it and what does it mean?

I may have imagined it from the "Subject:" email header, but perhaps it
was a directive file under that heading.

>>My latex letter templates for (business) letters have "Ref:" instead of
>>"Re:", is this standard or non-standard?
>>
>>[I think I've seen "Your Ref:" in printed documents in youth]
>
> ^Your ref" denotes a repeat of the other party's reference, which is
> normally "Our ref". These are typically internal office filing codes,
> or the initials of the author, or of the typist, for tracing the
> history of the matter. I think "Ref:" on its own often points to a
> file or an entry in a database. As an example, an insurance company
> might want any relevant policy number to appear in all correspondence
> about that policy.

thx, that explains it. The standarrd latex stylesheet for letter has a
command to write \opening{Dear Henry}

When there wasn't a direct recipeient, I would abuse this with, say

\opening{{\bf \centerline{Motion to Reconsider}}}
\opening{{\bf \centerline{To whomsoever it may concern}}}

But when there was a recipient and a subject, along the lines of

Re: rental agreement dated 11/21/20

\def\re#1{\begin{center}{{\em Ref.} #1\par}\end{center}}%

for \re{rental agreement dated...}
and used it indiscriminately for a subject line to list account numbers,
order numbers, and the subject matter aka email (Subject: Re)

>>> In the modern everyday world, hardly anyone really treats it as
>>> Latin, and it has become a simple abbreviation of
>>> "Regarding". Certainly that's how I treat it - and I did have a
>>> pretty good grounding in Latin all those years ago.

In IRC-Chat-Chat I think "re" meant something else. if someone
reconnected after disconnecting and said "re" he wasn't saying "re
hello" but was asking you to post anything he might have missed when he
was disconnected.

Sat, 6 Apr 2024 10:37:34 +0200: Bertel Lund Hansen
<gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> scribeva:

>Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
>> Yes, because translating things makes life easier for naive users. Or
>> so they think. In reality, "Re:" (incorrectly written RE: by MS) is
>> NOT a Latin, English or Interlingua word (although it can be that,
>> too), but an RFC prescribed CODE (which includes the colon), so it is
>> untranslatable, and must always remain what it is, verbatim.
>
>Isn't "Re:" from Latin "res"?

In English, yes. But the RFC prescribed it verbatim. So it's a code,
not for translation. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5322
==
When used in a reply, the field body MAY start with the string "Re: "
(an abbreviation of the Latin "in re", meaning "in the matter of")
followed by the contents of the "Subject:" field body of the original
message. If this is done, only one instance of the literal string
"Re: " ought to be used since use of other strings or more than one
instance can lead to undesirable consequences.
==

So the code, the litteral string, not only includes the colon, but
also the space. Using a translation violates the standard.

--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

Sat, 6 Apr 2024 10:54:25 +0200: Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com>
scribeva:

>On 2024-04-06 08:37:34 +0000, Bertel Lund Hansen said:
>
>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, because translating things makes life easier for naive users. Or
>>> so they think. In reality, "Re:" (incorrectly written RE: by MS) is
>>> NOT a Latin, English or Interlingua word (although it can be that,
>>> too), but an RFC prescribed CODE (which includes the colon), so it is
>>> untranslatable, and must always remain what it is, verbatim.
>>
>> Isn't "Re:" from Latin "res"?
>
>Yes of course: ablative singular. I see that Ruud is back to telling
>people how they _must_ behave.

I don't, Internet Standards, also known as RFCs, do.
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

Sat, 06 Apr 2024 02:36:33 -0700: Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
scribeva:

>Athel Cornish-Bowden was thinking very hard :
>> On 2024-04-06 08:37:34 +0000, Bertel Lund Hansen said:
>>
>>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, because translating things makes life easier for naive users. Or
>>>> so they think. In reality, "Re:" (incorrectly written RE: by MS) is
>>>> NOT a Latin, English or Interlingua word (although it can be that,
>>>> too), but an RFC prescribed CODE (which includes the colon), so it is
>>>> untranslatable, and must always remain what it is, verbatim.
>>>
>>> Isn't "Re:" from Latin "res"?
>>
>> Yes of course: ablative singular. I see that Ruud is back to telling people
>> how they _must_ behave.
>
>I think here he is trying to MS how to behave.

Yes, which is useless, because MS do what they want. But I am free to
express my opinion on it.
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

Sat, 6 Apr 2024 10:54:25 +0200: Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com>
scribeva:

>On 2024-04-06 08:37:34 +0000, Bertel Lund Hansen said:
>
>> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, because translating things makes life easier for naive users. Or
>>> so they think. In reality, "Re:" (incorrectly written RE: by MS) is
>>> NOT a Latin, English or Interlingua word (although it can be that,
>>> too), but an RFC prescribed CODE (which includes the colon), so it is
>>> untranslatable, and must always remain what it is, verbatim.
>>
>> Isn't "Re:" from Latin "res"?
>
>Yes of course: ablative singular. I see that Ruud is back to telling
>people how they _must_ behave.

Athel is allergic to strong opinions. I think it's best to completely
ignore that.
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

>Athel is allergic to strong opinions. I think it's best to completely
>ignore that.

You won't be able to shut me up, so spare yourself the effort. I will
continue to speak my mind, whatever you do. It'll only make me even
more determined.
--
Ruud Harmsen, https://rudhar.com

* Paul Carmichael <pan$17ade$19845671$fd523258$e9ab2922@gmail.com> :
Wrote on 7 Apr 2024 15:01:39 GMT:
> Oops. Nothing. So I'm not seeing sigs at all. Except when there is a
> url and that's all I see.

Maybe it has to do with some option about how your newsreader "treats
sigs" and displays them to you. the sigs are there afaict

El Sat, 06 Apr 2024 19:45:46 +1100, Peter Moylan escribió:

> On 06/04/24 19:19, Paul Carmichael wrote:
>> El Sat, 06 Apr 2024 08:15:15 +0000, Paul Carmichael escribió:
>>
>>> https://wibble.paulc.es/aue/sig.png
>>>
>>> (it's a picture of what I see).
>>
>> This is weird: https://wibble.paulc.es/aue/sig2.png
>>
>> It seems Pan strips the text leaving only the url.
>
> Interesting. This is a major distortion of what my signature says. It
> sounds as if Pan is seriously buggy.

Stop press:

There is an option to hide sigs. I didn't know, so it must be on by
default. Who'd have known?

So I've changed the bug report to say that when sigs are concealed, urls
within same are still shown.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es