% tim lupfer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Dec 17 at 01:39PM Thorsten Haude wrote: > > > * David T-G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [01-12-09 20:12]: > > could your attribution string be any more inane? I mean, come on, an > asterisk? they just aren't IN anymore.
How about @? @'s always in :) Oh, I know, % >:) btw, does attribution support optional entries, so when, for instance, the person you're replying to only has an address field, only that's shown, rather than * foo@bar (foo@bar) wrote: ? > and brackets in conjunction with a dating mechanism so unfamiliar and > unamerican? MM/DD/YY is so braindead. But then, what do you expect from a country full of people who can't even spell colour :P Anyway, I don't bother with the date, if you need information that detailed, look up the thread, same rationalle for deeply nested quotes who's attribution's been lost. 99% of the time, I doubt anyone cares. > Seriously though, tolerance is a good thing, we don't need any > mutt-user-on-mutt-user violence for the outlook-run news media to pick > up on and make example of. I guess we could all set our attribution lines to 'begin 666 ...' and convince their clients the mail's corrupt binary data :) -- Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.aagh.net/
