Talk:List of email subject abbreviations

title and content

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

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.

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}
or
End of Message {and so on} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatonom (talk • contribs) 04:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Netiquette is not encyclopedic

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

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?

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 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)