On 3/20/01 5:47 PM, "Gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Berkowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said, on 3/20/01 8:31 PM: > >>> >>> I don't know how useful naming the signature would be...either as a one-off >>> preference on first run, or for each make. >> >> Well, it has to have a name, It's better than [blank]. it doesn't really >> matter until you want to get rid of it or edit it. Then it might be useful >> instead of having to open up 100 blank-named signatures. > > Sorry, I meant as a feature...suggesting that it might be useful to be able > to name the signature, or to choose on first-run whether you wanted to > auto-name (as is) or be able to name. > > Ciao. > Ah. You can just go straight there and change it. Perhaps instead of a confirmation dialog, I'll just open the signature itself as a confirmation. Then you can either just close it as is or edit it and/or its name. That would be quickest, especially for people who don't want to rename: this is less annoying than yet another dialog plus the confirmation - it saves one step. -- Paul Berkowitz -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To search the archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
