On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 17:06, Scott Taylor wrote: > Michael is the issue of my font really big enough to reply to without > addressing my actual problem? > > would it be possible not to include more or less stupid sigs, moreover if > > they contain a a non-ascii character set which replaces my font when > > replying?
> -- > Scott Taylor > Managing Director > 4i dotCom > > Phone: +44 7767 257 371 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Web: http://www.4i-dotcom.com > > This transmission is confidential and intended for the named recipient > only. Should you not be the person or entity named, please be advised > that you have received this in error, and that you should delete this > immediately. > > > >"µú¡ ÛûÚV´}_aGG)O¤ÇÞäïeØW `îÀOÃüÀJèeBò ˵ýõ[\%ð;.Aó¶ > ¡UGÒ~å?~¹PÉFÃL¬7¾tI Michael was refering to this last line which contains no legible characters. Also, the fact that your email is confidential is pretty silly, considering the international nature of this list and the fact that it is archived in numerous locations. Save your fancy signature for corporate memos. -Ryan -- Psyche-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list
