Ben Bucksch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * As defined by generally accepted internet standards, a signature
> is anything incl. and after "-- " on its own line.
> So, if we fix the "bug", the quote would be part of the sig, not
> below the sig (since there can't be anything below the sig). In
> other words, the message would be malformed.
> As it is our goal to track standards as good as possible, this is
> a clear-cut reason for wontfix.
This is clearly a problem. Also, it is a good idea to display a
signature in fixed width letters, since they are often elaborately
formatted to fit maximum data in 80 column fixed with. This would
also break if "-- " doesn't mark the start of the sig, but rather
the start of the sig-plus-quote.
It seems to me that if business users want to keep a complete record
of messages to which they are replying and drag it around everywhere
(don't they have outboxes - don't they find it confusing to get a mail
that just says 'yes' and not know which exact question this is supposed
to be an answer to) then:
Mozilla should give them what they want by attaching the
previous message as a message/rfc821 attachment. That way,
the new part of the mail is a normal mail with the sig at the
bottom, and it is clear who wrote what.
Certainly, if a mail has gone back and forth between people
who quote with >>'s and people who quote unindented (with
"Start of Quoted message") it is not clear at all who wrote
what. Using attachments would add the information in a
machine-readable way, so it could be displayed in a clear way.
--
Erik Corry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ceterum censeo, Microsoftem esse delendam!
Interviewer: "Real programmers use cat as their editor."
Bill Joy: "That's right! There you go! It is too much trouble to say ed,
because cat's smaller and only needs two pages of memory."
