On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 11:44:16PM -0700, Luke Ravitch wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 08:17:17PM -0600, Duke Normandin wrote:
> >
> > Seems like what I was wanting to do is taboo... OK! How about:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Any ideas on how I can generate _that_ ? Would that break anything?
>
> Fascinating. Replying to this post and choosing to have the original
> message included, I get the above. The lines with the dashes
> disappeared. I wonder why. Well, consider that as a side effect.
>
> Anyway, what I was originally going to say was that I wouldn't put the
> ">" before the dashes because the dashes aren't part of the quoted
> message. Of course, then you need to consider the use of "--" as sig
> cutoff indicator. Maybe use equal signs instead of dashes.
>
> As for implementing it, you might be able to get the first line of
> dashes (or whatever) with setting attribution (see Mutt manual for
> details). I don't know what to do about the bottom line.
>
> Finally, I would recommend sticking with the standard way of doing
> things (one line of attribution and the standard reply-quote prefix).
> It's just cleaner. But if you really want to do as you inidicated
> above, good luck with figuring out how.
>
> --
> Luke
Thanks for the input! I'm going to think on proceding with this
experiment a bit more ;) I first saw this type of quoting the other day
on the FreeBSD-questions list. Mutt rendered it just great. I should have
pretended to reply to such a message to see what would have happened.
personally, I _hate_ the build-up of '> ' on the LH-side. Mutt's
color-coding sure helps in this regard though. I find the following
better suited for me for reading on-going threads:
> On April 18, 2001 Duke groaned...
---automatic cursor positioning here so that the reply _always follows_
then the subsequent replies would look like....
> On April 18, 2001 Duke groaned...
.
.
>> On April 18, 2001 Luke wrote...
.
.
>>> On April 18, 2001 Surash wrote....
etc
etc
[current message body]
To _me_ the above in uncluttered, obvious and _much_ easier to follow.
Granted its diametrically contrary to the status quo, but to _me_ the
status quo sucks - that is:
the follow-the-arrow-to-get-the-name-of-the-current-writer bullshit!
Anyway, I'm a firm believer that nothing man-made is or should be, etched
in stone. Standards are required, of course, to bring about peace and
harmony, but standards must be reviewed periodically to determine if they
are both effective AND efficient. I have no illusions that the Internet
mail quoting status quo will ever be changed -- and especially NOT to
accomodate me or anyone else. The above is merely wishful thinking on my
part; and I appreciate the concerns about breaking functionalities when
deviating from the current standards. I require no more guidance in this
matter, so thanks for your - and everyone's - input!
--
-duke
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
