* Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [08-01-2002 03:36]: | On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 21:04:10 -0500, mike ledoux wrote: | > On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 12:27:29AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: | > > Me too. Now, this isn't a problem for me as using the editor (emacs | > > in my case) to do that is a better solution since I can unstrip the | > > signature (with Ctrl-_ in my case) if need be. | > | > I disagree. Using the editor to do this is the *wrong* solution, since | > it requires my editor to know it is editing mail. I maintain that my | > editor shouldn't need to know that--text is text.
I couldn't _disagree_ with you more. For example, C source code is text to: I bet you'll want your editor to know that it's editing C source code ;) | What I want to say is that both the mailer and the editor should | have an option to strip the signature. But when one has the choice, | choosing the editor to do the job is a better solution. Yep. Bye, -- René Clerc - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Hell is when there is no reason to live and no courage to die. -William Markiewicz, "Extracts of Existence"
msg22564/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
