Subject: 'Subj:' versus 'Subject:'
To: TAUPIN AT rsovax DOT lps DOT u-psud DOT fr
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 16:47:45 +0100 (MET)
From: Henrik Storner <storner AT olicom DOT dk>
Cc: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu

<TAUPIN AT rsovax DOT lps DOT u-psud DOT fr> writes about mailer-software using
'Subj:' instead of 'Subject:' :

> This is some kind of intolerance by SOME (not all) mail receivers
> which refuse to understand the up-to-date Subject: as well as the
> old fashioned Subj:.

I don't think the use of 'Subj:' ever _was_ in fashion. Although my
mail-software (Elm) explicitly tests for both of these, RFC-822 is
quite clear on this matter: The subject-header is an optional field,
defined like this:

     optional-field =
                 /  "Message-ID"        ":"   msg-id
                 /  "Resent-Message-ID" ":"   msg-id
                 /  "In-Reply-To"       ":"  *(phrase / msg-id)
                 /  "References"        ":"  *(phrase / msg-id)
                 /  "Keywords"          ":"  #phrase
                 /  "Subject"           ":"  *text
                 /  "Comments"          ":"  *text
                 /  "Encrypted"         ":" 1#2word
                 /  extension-field              ; To be defined
                 /  user-defined-field           ; May be pre-empted

Nowhere in rfc-822 is there any mentioning of 'Subj:' being allowed instead
of 'Subject:' . (And 822 is pretty old; it's dated Aug 13th 1982).
-- 
Henrik Storner (storner AT olicom DOT dk)