> Od: "Michael M Slusarz" <slus...@horde.org> > Komu: <imp@lists.horde.org> > Dátum: 21.01.2013 21:42 > Predmet: Re: [imp] Signature > >Quoting Ralf Lang <l...@b1-systems.de>: > >> I understand the arguments for and against showing/editing signatures. >> Still I do not find it very intuitive and when H5 goes into production >> this month, I am sure users will ask for patches to at least see the >> signature. > >To summarize dozens of previous posts why signatures can NOT be added >to compose text: > >1.) A signature MUST MUST MUST be added to the bottom. For those that >top-post on replies, your signature MUST NOT appear after "your" text, >because then there is no way of telling below the signature what is >YOUR data vs. what is OTHER'S data. You can't allow users to change >this, period. > >If someone tells me this is how outlook/Gmail/some other MUA does it, >I will slap them. > >2.) Signatures have an "unofficial" delimiter that has a specific >format (although unofficial, it is reference in at least one official >RFC). A user MUST NOT be able to change this delimiter. >Additionally, this delimiter can get munged during draft >saving/resuming, or browser refreshes/sending. This kind of >structural element should never be exposed to the user. > >3.) Resuming drafts. It is possible to keep track if IMP adds a >signature to a draft message, but other MUAs have no knowledge of >this. By not adding a signature to a message, it at least fixes the >issue of a draft message saved by IMP and resumed by another MUA from >having duplicate signatures. > >4.) Regardless of #3... a signature should NEVER EVER EVER be added to >a draft message since a signature CAN BE CHANGED BETWEEN DRAFT SAVE >TIME AND SEND TIME. A signature is potentially dynamic. A USER >SHOULD NEVER BE EXPECTED TO MANUALLY CHANGE A SIGNATURE IN THIS >MATTER. "Placeholder template code/text" is not an option (see #3). > >5.) SIGNATURES ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE EDITED PER MESSAGE!! This is >NOT what a signature is. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of >what a signature is supposed to do (and the point most other MUAs >miss). This describes instead a "template" or "auto-append" feature >rather than a signature. > >People keep bringing up the idea that "users want to alter their >signature". Why? Someone give me ONE REAL-WORLD EXAMPLE OF WHEN A >USER WOULD CONCEIVABLY DO THIS. > >Here's an example signature: > >John Smith >Manager, Widgets LLC >Email: f...@exaple.com >Mailing Address: 123 Main Street > Anytown, Anystate 12345 USA > >What part of that signature would a *realistic* user change on any >given e-mail message? > >The only thing I could potentially see is sending a message using a >"personal" signature vs. a "business" signature, and needing different >signatures for both. But that is the entire point of multiple >identities in the first place. > >6.) Signatures make no sense to add in the minimal or smartmobile >view. In both of these cases, signature information (which may be >quite long) simply detracts from being able to actually enter text to >send a message. So now you have the case where you have inconsistent >UI between different views (some show signature, some don't). That is >*VERY* confusing for users. If UI elements are shared between views, >they must act similarly. The only practical answer is to never show >the signature data. > >7.) It is IMPOSSIBLE to reliably switch signature data when switching >between HTML/Plaintext, and switching between identities. The code in >previous versions of IMP DID NOT EVEN PRETEND THAT THIS WOULD RELIABLY >HAPPEN. There's nothing worse than writing code that "might" work >depending on how the user has altered the compose text. The amount of >time spent trying to maintain this terrible mess of code far exceeded >the benefit it ever provided. > > >That's *7* reasons why this is a terrible idea. I could go on more - >such as with how the real-world example of letterhead, quoted as >reason why signatures need to be displayed, actually is a slam-dunk >argument as to why signatures should not be displayed - but I have >better things to do today rather than continuing this argument that is >well-settled. > >This is the last time I will discuss this topic. Rest assured, it is >not happening in IMP ever so everyone can stop wasting their time >bringing it up. This time is better spent patching IMP locally as you >see fit (the benefit of open-source).
After reading this, it looks to me that you EXACTLY know what signature is, how it should looks and how it must be used by everyone. I assume you are basing your arguments on RFC or something like that. Can i see it? Thank you. azur -- imp mailing list Frequently Asked Questions: http://wiki.horde.org/FAQ To unsubscribe, mail: imp-unsubscr...@lists.horde.org
