On 2009-04-10, Anders Rayner-Karlsson <and...@trudheim.co.uk> wrote: > Gary Johnson <garyj...@spocom.com> [20090410 22:55]: > >> The rules for signatures are different in some corporate >> environments,
None of the places I've worked had rules requiring 90% of the bad-form. AFAICT, it's pretty much all the result of Microsoft's choices for default settings in Outlook. Lotus probably also deserves some blame for the default settings in Notes. >> so it's really nice that mutt allows the 'sig_on_top' option. >> I set 'sig_on_top', 'indent_string', 'header' and >> 'attribution' one way for "Outlook-style" replies to senders >> within the company I work for, and another way for normal >> "Internet-style" replies to everyone else. > > Indeed there is intolerance in corporate environments towards the > "proper" e-mail style as 'defined' in netiquette documents. Things > like appalling quoting style, 20 line signatures including pictures, > never trimming the e-mails you respond to etc etc ad nauseum is the > defacto corporate standard. When corporate types started using e-mail, I was appalled at the e-mails they produced. I would have been mortified to sent out such unprofessional piles of crap with my name on them, but the suits don't seem to mind. It sort of explains the state of the world's economy... Recently somebody at my company came to me and told me he loved how easy to follow my e-mails were and how much he liked the quoting and intermixing of response/quotes. Then he asked me how he could get MS Outlook to do that sort of stuff, and I sadly had to tell him that I had no idea. I should do a bit of research in case I get that question again. When replying, it does take a bit of work to massage into acceptable form the crap-piles that are corporate e-mails. But damned if I'm going to put my name on something that looks that embarrassing. -- Grant
