Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
"Neil Durant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Garth Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >> In particular, if you send a multipart message of the form: > >> > >>Paragraph of text > >> > >>## (this is some attachment) > >> > >>Paragraph of text > >> > >> ..then the 2nd paragraph of text should appear in exactly the same form > >> in the message (in raw form) than the first paragraph, so it's no more > >> likely to be intended to be a text attachment than the first paragraph, > >> which is generally shown as text. > > > >Again, depends on Content-Disposition. That's what that > >header is for. > > So if the text parts (the surrounding paragraphs) have no > Content-Disposition header? My understanding of the RFCs is for such > text parts to be displayed the same as each other, if they have the same > part headers. This is where many user agents break down, showing the > first as an inline paragraph of text and the second as a separate text > attachment. If there's no Content-Disposition header, it's up to the UA. AIUI, it's perfectly legitimate for a UA to display a text part of a multipart message as an attachment if the sender did not express a preference.
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Garth Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >> In particular, if you send a multipart message of the form: >> >>Paragraph of text >> >>## (this is some attachment) >> >>Paragraph of text >> >> ..then the 2nd paragraph of text should appear in exactly the same form >> in the message (in raw form) than the first paragraph, so it's no more >> likely to be intended to be a text attachment than the first paragraph, >> which is generally shown as text. > >Again, depends on Content-Disposition. That's what that >header is for. So if the text parts (the surrounding paragraphs) have no Content-Disposition header? My understanding of the RFCs is for such text parts to be displayed the same as each other, if they have the same part headers. This is where many user agents break down, showing the first as an inline paragraph of text and the second as a separate text attachment. Neil -- === Neil Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Fax: 08700 520159 ===
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
"Neil Durant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Garth Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >> By all means force outgoing attachments to be put at the end by the > >> software, if preferred, but mail/news clients should be able to > >> interleave body text and attachments for incoming messages if they are > >> to comply with the RFCs. > > > >It's called an "inline attachment". There's an optional > >MIME header "Content-Disposition:" that is used to > >determine whether the content should be displayed > >inline with the basic message view or separately as > >an attachment. > > > >From RFC 2183: > > > >> 2.1 The Inline Disposition Type > >> > >> A bodypart should be marked `inline' if it is > >> intended to be displayed automatically upon display > >> of the message. Inline bodyparts should be presented > >> in the order in which they occur, subject to the normal > >> semantics of multipart messages. > > > >Note that last sentence. Mailers that ignore the > >Content-Disposition header display text following the inline > >attachment as attachments because they really are > >attachments...they're separate from the initial main body > >text. The inline attachments aren't "interleaved with the > >main body text", they follow the main body text and can > >be themselves followed by additional inline attachments > >(which may be text). > > > >And for completeness' sake: > > > >> 2.2 The Attachment Disposition Type > >> > >> Bodyparts can be designated `attachment' to indicate > >> that they are separate from the main body of the mail > >> message, and that their display should not be > >> automatic, but contingent upon some further action of > >> the user. The MUA might instead present the user of a > >> bitmap terminal with an iconic representation of the > >> attachments, or, on character terminals, with a list of > >> attachments from which the user could select for viewing > >> or storage. > > But doesn't this suggest that the term "attachment" really really > refers to part of a MIME message that shouldn't be "displayed" (in > whatever appropriate sense) within the message? For example, a JPEG as > an attachment that isn't expanded into a visible image inline, but > appearing as perhaps an icon that can be clicked on to launch a separate > viewer? Hmm, true. But they're still basically the same thing, just one has a Content-Disposition of "attachment" and the other of "inline". > Nothing in the RFCs, as far as I can see, suggests that a multipart > message cannot have interleaved text and "attachments" (whether they are > perhaps images rendered inline, according to the content disposition > header, or some other visible representation of the content), You can certainly alternate between text sections and other types in a multipart message. > and I > don't see why the content disposition header is relevant to anything > other than how viewable MIME content is displayed. Surely if part of a > multipart message is "Content-Type: text/plain", it should be arguably > be displayed as text, and not shown to be an attachment. Depends on the Content-Disposition header. If it's "inline", it's displayed inline, if it's "attachment", it's a separate attachment. Same as any other type. There is no standard default behavior (if no Content-Disposition is provided), so in that case it's up to the user agent. > In particular, if you send a multipart message of the form: > >Paragraph of text > >## (this is some attachment) > >Paragraph of text > > ..then the 2nd paragraph of text should appear in exactly the same form > in the message (in raw form) than the first paragraph, so it's no more > likely to be intended to be a text attachment than the first paragraph, > which is generally shown as text. Again, depends on Content-Disposition. That's what that header is for. > >Hopefully this MIME-based sig standard, if it ever appears, > >will clear up the ambiguities sigs have WRT attachments. > > Indeed. In addition, maybe it would be beneficial to have quoted text > appear as a separate MIME type. I kind of doubt that will happen. There's already text/plain (in both format=fixed and format=flowed varieties), and message/rfc822.
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Garth Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >> By all means force outgoing attachments to be put at the end by the >> software, if preferred, but mail/news clients should be able to >> interleave body text and attachments for incoming messages if they are >> to comply with the RFCs. > >It's called an "inline attachment". There's an optional >MIME header "Content-Disposition:" that is used to >determine whether the content should be displayed >inline with the basic message view or separately as >an attachment. > >From RFC 2183: > >> 2.1 The Inline Disposition Type >> >> A bodypart should be marked `inline' if it is >> intended to be displayed automatically upon display >> of the message. Inline bodyparts should be presented >> in the order in which they occur, subject to the normal >> semantics of multipart messages. > >Note that last sentence. Mailers that ignore the >Content-Disposition header display text following the inline >attachment as attachments because they really are >attachments...they're separate from the initial main body >text. The inline attachments aren't "interleaved with the >main body text", they follow the main body text and can >be themselves followed by additional inline attachments >(which may be text). > >And for completeness' sake: > >> 2.2 The Attachment Disposition Type >> >> Bodyparts can be designated `attachment' to indicate >> that they are separate from the main body of the mail >> message, and that their display should not be >> automatic, but contingent upon some further action of >> the user. The MUA might instead present the user of a >> bitmap terminal with an iconic representation of the >> attachments, or, on character terminals, with a list of >> attachments from which the user could select for viewing >> or storage. But doesn't this suggest that the term "attachment" really really refers to part of a MIME message that shouldn't be "displayed" (in whatever appropriate sense) within the message? For example, a JPEG as an attachment that isn't expanded into a visible image inline, but appearing as perhaps an icon that can be clicked on to launch a separate viewer? Nothing in the RFCs, as far as I can see, suggests that a multipart message cannot have interleaved text and "attachments" (whether they are perhaps images rendered inline, according to the content disposition header, or some other visible representation of the content), and I don't see why the content disposition header is relevant to anything other than how viewable MIME content is displayed. Surely if part of a multipart message is "Content-Type: text/plain", it should be arguably be displayed as text, and not shown to be an attachment. In particular, if you send a multipart message of the form: Paragraph of text ## (this is some attachment) Paragraph of text ..then the 2nd paragraph of text should appear in exactly the same form in the message (in raw form) than the first paragraph, so it's no more likely to be intended to be a text attachment than the first paragraph, which is generally shown as text. >Unfortunately, none of the RFCs really address sigs in the >context of MIME format: they don't say whether sigs must >appear at the end of the main body text, or if they may >appear in inline attachments, so you have to go by how the >majority of mailers/newsreaders interpret it. In my experience, >the sig tends to get put in the first section of the body (main >body text) and attachments follow. That also seems to be safe >(that is, I haven't seen a mailer strip an inline text attachment >because it follows a sigdash in the main body). > >Son-of-RFC 1036 mentions that work is being done on a MIME >based signature scheme (a note in section 4.3.2): > >> NOTE: The choice of delimiter is somewhat unfortunate, >> since it relies on preservation of trailing white space, but >> it is too wellestablished to change. There is work underway >> to define a more sophisticated signature scheme as part of >> MIME, and this will presumably supersede the current >> convention in due time. > >Hopefully this MIME-based sig standard, if it ever appears, >will clear up the ambiguities sigs have WRT attachments. Indeed. In addition, maybe it would be beneficial to have quoted text appear as a separate MIME type. Neil -- === Neil Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Fax: 08700 520159 ===
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
"Neil Durant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Jacek Piskozub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >Peter Lairo wrote: > > > >> Gervase Markham wrote: > > > >>> b) A signature appears at the end of a document, by analogy with paper > >>> documents. Everyone knows that. > >>No, in all of our reports, the signature comes after the report > >>text, THEN come the supporting documents (tables, lab analyses, > >>copies of coorespondence, etc.). > > > >Well, attachments do come after the signature. I see no problem here. > > According to the RFCs, attachments should be able to be inserted > anywhere in the document, so you should be able to say something like, > "Here's the spreadsheet I was telling you about", followed by an > attachment, and then "And this is a relevant graph", followed by another > attachment. > > Sadly a lot of non-fully-RFC compliant email/news software mistakenly > assumes attachments come at the end, so for example with Outlook > Express, if it finds an attachment followed by some more text, that text > appears an a second attachment! > > By all means force outgoing attachments to be put at the end by the > software, if preferred, but mail/news clients should be able to > interleave body text and attachments for incoming messages if they are > to comply with the RFCs. It's called an "inline attachment". There's an optional MIME header "Content-Disposition:" that is used to determine whether the content should be displayed inline with the basic message view or separately as an attachment. >From RFC 2183: > 2.1 The Inline Disposition Type > > A bodypart should be marked `inline' if it is > intended to be displayed automatically upon display > of the message. Inline bodyparts should be presented > in the order in which they occur, subject to the normal > semantics of multipart messages. Note that last sentence. Mailers that ignore the Content-Disposition header display text following the inline attachment as attachments because they really are attachments...they're separate from the initial main body text. The inline attachments aren't "interleaved with the main body text", they follow the main body text and can be themselves followed by additional inline attachments (which may be text). And for completeness' sake: > 2.2 The Attachment Disposition Type > > Bodyparts can be designated `attachment' to indicate > that they are separate from the main body of the mail > message, and that their display should not be > automatic, but contingent upon some further action of > the user. The MUA might instead present the user of a > bitmap terminal with an iconic representation of the > attachments, or, on character terminals, with a list of > attachments from which the user could select for viewing > or storage. Unfortunately, none of the RFCs really address sigs in the context of MIME format: they don't say whether sigs must appear at the end of the main body text, or if they may appear in inline attachments, so you have to go by how the majority of mailers/newsreaders interpret it. In my experience, the sig tends to get put in the first section of the body (main body text) and attachments follow. That also seems to be safe (that is, I haven't seen a mailer strip an inline text attachment because it follows a sigdash in the main body). Son-of-RFC 1036 mentions that work is being done on a MIME based signature scheme (a note in section 4.3.2): > NOTE: The choice of delimiter is somewhat unfortunate, > since it relies on preservation of trailing white space, but > it is too wellestablished to change. There is work underway > to define a more sophisticated signature scheme as part of > MIME, and this will presumably supersede the current > convention in due time. Hopefully this MIME-based sig standard, if it ever appears, will clear up the ambiguities sigs have WRT attachments.
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
as described that's not an attachement. What you are describing is embedding. Communicator 4.7.x is capable of such but am unsure if embeddig is available in N6/Moz. Neil Durant wrote: > > Jacek Piskozub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >Peter Lairo wrote: > > > >> Gervase Markham wrote: > > > >>> b) A signature appears at the end of a document, by analogy with paper > >>> documents. Everyone knows that. > >>No, in all of our reports, the signature comes after the report > >>text, THEN come the supporting documents (tables, lab analyses, > >>copies of coorespondence, etc.). > >> > > > >Well, attachments do come after the signature. I see no problem here. > > According to the RFCs, attachments should be able to be inserted > anywhere in the document, so you should be able to say something like, > "Here's the spreadsheet I was telling you about", followed by an > attachment, and then "And this is a relevant graph", followed by another > attachment. > > Sadly a lot of non-fully-RFC compliant email/news software mistakenly > assumes attachments come at the end, so for example with Outlook > Express, if it finds an attachment followed by some more text, that text > appears an a second attachment! > > By all means force outgoing attachments to be put at the end by the > software, if preferred, but mail/news clients should be able to > interleave body text and attachments for incoming messages if they are > to comply with the RFCs. > > Neil > -- > === > Neil Durant > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Fax: 08700 520159 > === -- -- Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling 616 Liberty Street|Who's Who. PHONE:540-632-5045, FAX:540-632-0868 Martinsville Va 24112-1809|[EMAIL PROTECTED], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet -- If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Jacek Piskozub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >Peter Lairo wrote: > >> Gervase Markham wrote: > >>> b) A signature appears at the end of a document, by analogy with paper >>> documents. Everyone knows that. >>No, in all of our reports, the signature comes after the report >>text, THEN come the supporting documents (tables, lab analyses, >>copies of coorespondence, etc.). >> > >Well, attachments do come after the signature. I see no problem here. According to the RFCs, attachments should be able to be inserted anywhere in the document, so you should be able to say something like, "Here's the spreadsheet I was telling you about", followed by an attachment, and then "And this is a relevant graph", followed by another attachment. Sadly a lot of non-fully-RFC compliant email/news software mistakenly assumes attachments come at the end, so for example with Outlook Express, if it finds an attachment followed by some more text, that text appears an a second attachment! By all means force outgoing attachments to be put at the end by the software, if preferred, but mail/news clients should be able to interleave body text and attachments for incoming messages if they are to comply with the RFCs. Neil -- === Neil Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Fax: 08700 520159 ===
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Peter Lairo wrote: > Gervase Markham wrote: >> b) A signature appears at the end of a document, by analogy with paper >> documents. Everyone knows that. > > > > No, in all of our reports, the signature comes after the report text, > THEN come the supporting documents (tables, lab analyses, copies of > coorespondence, etc.). > Well, attachments do come after the signature. I see no problem here. Jacek
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That is why i am suggesting to change the RFC. You gotta start > somewhere. How do standards eveolve? Surely not by staying with the > lowest common denominator. I doubt adding two plusses (++) will brake > anything :) Depends upon what you mean by "break" -- the sigdash would stop doing it's join in all of the programs that currently handle it. -- J.B. Moreno
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Gervase Markham wrote: >>Then the RFC is bad. Software should work the way the user wants it to >>work (within reason, of course). If a mail client needs to know where a >>sig is, then why not define it as: >> >>-- = sig beginning >> >>++ = sig end >> >>That way the sig could be anywhere. Simple, elegant, make everybody happy. >> > > Because > a) Every piece of newsreader software on the planet would not understand > ++ . That is why i am suggesting to change the RFC. You gotta start somewhere. How do standards eveolve? Surely not by staying with the lowest common denominator. I doubt adding two plusses (++) will brake anything :) > b) A signature appears at the end of a document, by analogy with paper > documents. Everyone knows that. No, in all of our reports, the signature comes after the report text, THEN come the supporting documents (tables, lab analyses, copies of coorespondence, etc.). -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
> Then the RFC is bad. Software should work the way the user wants it to > work (within reason, of course). If a mail client needs to know where a > sig is, then why not define it as: > > -- = sig beginning > > ++ = sig end > > That way the sig could be anywhere. Simple, elegant, make everybody happy. Because a) Every piece of newsreader software on the planet would not understand ++ . b) A signature appears at the end of a document, by analogy with paper documents. Everyone knows that. Gerv
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Peter Lairo wrote: > > The dropdown is an OK solution IF you have an account for every type of > signature you want (BTW, that's ass-backwards). I only have one mail > account, but would really like to be able to choose from various > signatures on a mail-by-mail basis. I can see how people would find that useful, but there's always the balance bewteen features vs bloat/time to deliver to keep in mind. Still, I bet someone could start a project to make an installable component to do just what you describe. Another project for mozdev.org, anyone? Peter? -- ? Mike Gratton - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ! Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976. > http://web.vee.net/
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Peter Lairo wrote:
> Neil Durant wrote:
>
>> Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>
> This should work no matter where the sig block is placed. That's
> just a
> hacked solution. Better would be a dropdown selection where you can
> choose from various signatures (e.g., home/work, Text/HTML).
Yeah, but again, that's the point - it *does* work no matter where
you .sig currently is. And that drop-down is already there - the
from thing I was talking about above.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Great, so the sig shoud be able to go directly below my text (and not
>>> way down below the quoted text).
>>
>>
>>
>> One thing people are missing is that the signature separator ("-- ")
>> that is supposed to come before the signature is used to tell
>> mail/news clients that "everything after this should not be quoted in
>> replies". Good mail/news software should implement this.
>>
>> Why can't people just go and read the RFCs ?
>>
>
> Then the RFC is bad. Software should work the way the user wants it to
> work (within reason, of course). If a mail client needs to know where a
> sig is, then why not define it as:
>
> -- = sig beginning
>
> ++ = sig end
>
> That way the sig could be anywhere. Simple, elegant, make everybody happy.
Except that this format is only defined in a newsgroup message (as
opposed to a RFC) and that no other reader on earth supports it. I
actually think you would be happier requesting some sort of text pasting
feature in mozilla. Then you could bind text (like your signature) to a
key and smack the key when you are done top-replying to a message. You
only lose one keystroke, we get one somewhat useful new feature in
Mozilla, and the 'bottom-signatures-only-rearguard' are mostly happy.
Now if I lived in an alternate universe
...the real issue is that the signature and the body of the message
are two distinct pieces of information. The '--' is only a hack to
delimit this information for quoting. It has always made me wonder why
a signature was not included as a header like 'Signature: blah'. Then
common mailers could display it at the bottom as text (like now), or
display it on request (I rarely want to see anyones signature; up to 3
more lines to scroll through), or display it in a seperate pane. I
suspect it involves having to embedd newlines somehow. Oh well thats
how it rolls I guess.
-Tom
PS - For simple request/reply business emails, especially ones that take
weeks to respond to I like to have my entire original message included
in the reply. However, for all other communication I want inlined and
trimmed responses. Different strokes I guess. The internet is not so
much a democracy as an anarchy.
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Neil Durant wrote:
> Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
This should work no matter where the sig block is placed. That's just a
hacked solution. Better would be a dropdown selection where you can
choose from various signatures (e.g., home/work, Text/HTML).
>>>
>>> Yeah, but again, that's the point - it *does* work no matter where
>>> you .sig currently is. And that drop-down is already there - the
>>> from thing I was talking about above.
>>
>>
>> Great, so the sig shoud be able to go directly below my text (and not
>> way down below the quoted text).
>
>
> One thing people are missing is that the signature separator ("-- ")
> that is supposed to come before the signature is used to tell mail/news
> clients that "everything after this should not be quoted in replies".
> Good mail/news software should implement this.
>
> Why can't people just go and read the RFCs ?
>
Then the RFC is bad. Software should work the way the user wants it to
work (within reason, of course). If a mail client needs to know where a
sig is, then why not define it as:
-- = sig beginning
++ = sig end
That way the sig could be anywhere. Simple, elegant, make everybody happy.
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>> This should work no matter where the sig block is placed. That's just a
>>> hacked solution. Better would be a dropdown selection where you can
>>> choose from various signatures (e.g., home/work, Text/HTML).
>> Yeah, but again, that's the point - it *does* work no matter where
>>you .sig currently is. And that drop-down is already there - the from
>>thing I was talking about above.
>
>Great, so the sig shoud be able to go directly below my text (and not
>way down below the quoted text).
One thing people are missing is that the signature separator ("-- ")
that is supposed to come before the signature is used to tell mail/news
clients that "everything after this should not be quoted in replies".
Good mail/news software should implement this.
Why can't people just go and read the RFCs ?
Neil
--
===
Neil Durant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Fax: 08700 520159
===
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
>> This should work no matter where the sig block is placed. That's just a >> hacked solution. Better would be a dropdown selection where you can >> choose from various signatures (e.g., home/work, Text/HTML). > > > Yeah, but again, that's the point - it *does* work no matter where you > .sig currently is. And that drop-down is already there - the from thing > I was talking about above. > Great, so the sig shoud be able to go directly below my text (and not way down below the quoted text). The dropdown is an OK solution IF you have an account for every type of signature you want (BTW, that's ass-backwards). I only have one mail account, but would really like to be able to choose from various signatures on a mail-by-mail basis. Of course one should be able to define a default signature to handle the most common cases. -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Peter Lairo wrote: > > This should work no matter where the sig is. > Yeah, but I think the point is Moz needs to keep track of the .sig block somehow, and so they've decided to use a pre or a div or whatever it is with a special class, which seems like a reasonable way of doing it, IMHO. > Me too (work and personal mail at work). Where do you select the > "account", I would like to try this? When composing a message, and you have multiple accounts, the "From" field just under the toolbar is a drop-down combo which lets you select the account you're sending from. If your accounts have different .sigs (set in Mail/News account settings, of course) then Moz will swap the .sig to be the correct one for the account that you select. > This should work no matter where the sig block is placed. That's just a > hacked solution. Better would be a dropdown selection where you can > choose from various signatures (e.g., home/work, Text/HTML). Yeah, but again, that's the point - it *does* work no matter where you .sig currently is. And that drop-down is already there - the from thing I was talking about above. -- ? Mike Gratton - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ! "Scientific progress goes 'boink'?" > http://web.vee.net/
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Michael Gratton wrote: > > > Peter Lairo wrote: > >> if the sig were just plain text (body) and not some weird preformat >> (whatever that is), then nothing would disappear. Why do wec >> need this silly and buggy preformat anyhow? > > > > I always though it was to support the .sig-account-swapping thing. IIRC, > the sig block has a special class that marks it as "the signature" > in a message. That way, when selecting a different "From: " > account at the top of the compose window, the newly specified > account's sig can be inserted in the right place. This should work no matter where the sig is. > So, at work I use Moz for both work and personal email. When sending a > message, it defaults to using my work account and hence my corporate > .sig. However, when I'm sending a personal message, I'll select > my personal account and the .sig gets swapped, even if I've > started typing the message. Me too (work and personal mail at work). Where do you select the "account", I would like to try this? > > Personally, I love this feature, it's one of the things that makes Moz > actually *usable* for multiple accounts, and I'll complaint loud > and far it it gets removed. So, keep the block so my .sigs still > get swapped! 8) > This should work no matter where the sig block is placed. That's just a hacked solution. Better would be a dropdown selection where you can choose from various signatures (e.g., home/work, Text/HTML). -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Peter Lairo wrote: > if the sig were just plain text (body) and not some weird preformat > (whatever that is), then nothing would disappear. Why do wec need this > silly and buggy preformat anyhow? I always though it was to support the .sig-account-swapping thing. IIRC, the sig block has a special class that marks it as "the signature" in a message. That way, when selecting a different "From: " account at the top of the compose window, the newly specified account's sig can be inserted in the right place. So, at work I use Moz for both work and personal email. When sending a message, it defaults to using my work account and hence my corporate .sig. However, when I'm sending a personal message, I'll select my personal account and the .sig gets swapped, even if I've started typing the message. Personally, I love this feature, it's one of the things that makes Moz actually *usable* for multiple accounts, and I'll complaint loud and far it it gets removed. So, keep the block so my .sigs still get swapped! 8) -- ? Mike Gratton - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ! Leader in leachate production and transmission since 1976. > http://web.vee.net/
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
On 09 Jul 2001 00:53:21 +0200, Peter Lairo wrote: > >You are comparing apples to oranges. When you send a fax, in the manner > >meantioned above, you also don't cut out the dialog you're not referring > >to (as I have done here) and write your responses following the other > >writer's statements (again as I have done here). Once this has been > >done, the quoted text becomes part of your post, hence the signature at > >the end of the entire message. If however you are leaving the entire > >text of the original message intact as an "attachment" then yes, I agree > >that your signature would come before the attachements. However as > >indicated above these are two different things. > > > I think you might not want to understand. I may attach only PART of the > relevant correspondence to a fax, but still place my signature below MY > text. No, I understand. It's still apples to oranges. Christopher Jahn described what I was getting at a little better. Either way when you are faxing you are doing more of an "attach" than an inline quote. For inline quotes your signature belongs after all of the text, even the quoted text. Jamin W. Collins
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >On 08 Jul 2001 23:16:24 +0200, Peter Lairo wrote: > >>That's silly, when I send a fax and attach another document for >>reference, I don't put my signature at the end of the last atachment, I >>put it at the end of my own fax document (THEN come the attachments). So >>whether i'm forwarding/replying inline or with attachments should make >>no difference. *My signarure should be at the end of my text*. >> > >You are comparing apples to oranges. When you send a fax, in the manner >meantioned above, you also don't cut out the dialog you're not referring >to (as I have done here) and write your responses following the other >writer's statements (again as I have done here). Once this has been >done, the quoted text becomes part of your post, hence the signature at >the end of the entire message. If however you are leaving the entire >text of the original message intact as an "attachment" then yes, I agree >that your signature would come before the attachements. However as >indicated above these are two different things. > >Jamin W. Collins > I think you might not want to understand. I may attach only PART of the relevant correspondence to a fax, but still place my signature below MY text. -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
And it came to pass that Peter Lairo wrote:
> Christopher Jahn wrote:
>
>> And it came to pass that Peter Lairo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>J.B. Moreno wrote:
>>>
>>>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Lairo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Just create a new mail and make sure the formatting bar
>is visible (font, bold, underline, add table, etc.). I
>you place the curser in the body of your message, the
>little button on the left will say "body", if the curser
>is in your signature, trhe button says "preformat".
>
>
Ah, well, that doesn't really have anything to do with
anything. At least not anything to do with why the
signature should come after the body. As has been said
any number of times, the reason the signature comes after
the body is because that is what it *is*: the text that
comes after the body, and is separated by it by the
sigdash.
>>>
>>>Wrong, *MY signature should come after MY body text*, and
>>>not way down below after a bunch of other body texts by any
>>>number of people.
>>>
>>
>> No, Peter, YOU'RE wrong; by quoting those people, you've
>> made those texts a PART of your message.
>> The solution you need isn't to break the .sig, but to place
>> the quotes into an attached file.
>
>
>
> That's silly, when I send a fax and attach another document
> for reference, I don't put my signature at the end of the
> last atachment, I put it at the end of my own fax document
ATTACH being the operative word. What you want to do is forward
the text as an attachment, not as a quote. THEN your sig will
appear after your text, and the other stuff will be attached at
the bottom.
There's nothing wrong with with the program: you're just not
using it correctly.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Drive carefully. 90% of the people in the world are caused by
accidents.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
On 08 Jul 2001 23:16:24 +0200, Peter Lairo wrote: > That's silly, when I send a fax and attach another document for > reference, I don't put my signature at the end of the last atachment, I > put it at the end of my own fax document (THEN come the attachments). So > whether i'm forwarding/replying inline or with attachments should make > no difference. *My signarure should be at the end of my text*. You are comparing apples to oranges. When you send a fax, in the manner meantioned above, you also don't cut out the dialog you're not referring to (as I have done here) and write your responses following the other writer's statements (again as I have done here). Once this has been done, the quoted text becomes part of your post, hence the signature at the end of the entire message. If however you are leaving the entire text of the original message intact as an "attachment" then yes, I agree that your signature would come before the attachements. However as indicated above these are two different things. Jamin W. Collins
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Christopher Jahn wrote: > And it came to pass that Peter Lairo wrote: > > >>J.B. Moreno wrote: >> >> >>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Lairo >>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Just create a new mail and make sure the formatting bar is visible (font, bold, underline, add table, etc.). I you place the curser in the body of your message, the little button on the left will say "body", if the curser is in your signature, trhe button says "preformat". >>>Ah, well, that doesn't really have anything to do with >>>anything. At least not anything to do with why the >>>signature should come after the body. As has been said any >>>number of times, the reason the signature comes after the >>>body is because that is what it *is*: the text that comes >>>after the body, and is separated by it by the sigdash. >>> >> >>Wrong, *MY signature should come after MY body text*, and >>not way down below after a bunch of other body texts by any >>number of people. >> > > No, Peter, YOU'RE wrong; by quoting those people, you've made > those texts a PART of your message. > The solution you need isn't to break the .sig, but to place the > quotes into an attached file. That's silly, when I send a fax and attach another document for reference, I don't put my signature at the end of the last atachment, I put it at the end of my own fax document (THEN come the attachments). So whether i'm forwarding/replying inline or with attachments should make no difference. *My signarure should be at the end of my text*. >>>To speak of the sig being in the middle of the message is >>>roughly the equivalent of talking about the headers that >>>come in the middle of the message. >>> >>> >>Wrong again, it's a matter of *MY signature coming after MY >>body text*. It's so clear, I don't see why you don't get it. >> >> > > > Because you're wrong ;-) > > As stated above, by quoting, you make the quotes a part of *your > mesage*. THAT's so clear, I don't see why YOU don't get it. > > It's the same in ANY correspondence. The rules of style and > format do not change with the medium. I see your point, but I disagree. I think it's a matter of preference or how one chooses to view it. I see it as follows: +--- | | dear sir, | | bla bla bla | | sincerely, <--- my signature is here !!! | Peter | | attachments: previous correspondence for your reference | +--- -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
And it came to pass that Peter Lairo wrote:
> J.B. Moreno wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Lairo
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Just create a new mail and make sure the formatting bar is
>>>visible (font, bold, underline, add table, etc.). I you
>>>place the curser in the body of your message, the little
>>>button on the left will say "body", if the curser is in
>>>your signature, trhe button says "preformat".
>>>
>>
>> Ah, well, that doesn't really have anything to do with
>> anything. At least not anything to do with why the
>> signature should come after the body. As has been said any
>> number of times, the reason the signature comes after the
>> body is because that is what it *is*: the text that comes
>> after the body, and is separated by it by the sigdash.
>
>
> Wrong, *MY signature should come after MY body text*, and
> not way down below after a bunch of other body texts by any
> number of people.
No, Peter, YOU'RE wrong; by quoting those people, you've made
those texts a PART of your message.
The solution you need isn't to break the .sig, but to place the
quotes into an attached file.
>
>
>>
>> To speak of the sig being in the middle of the message is
>> roughly the equivalent of talking about the headers that
>> come in the middle of the message.
>>
>
> Wrong again, it's a matter of *MY signature coming after MY
> body text*. It's so clear, I don't see why you don't get it.
>
Because you're wrong ;-)
As stated above, by quoting, you make the quotes a part of *your
mesage*. THAT's so clear, I don't see why YOU don't get it.
It's the same in ANY correspondence. The rules of style and
format do not change with the medium.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Be excellent to each other
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
J.B. Moreno wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Just create a new mail and make sure the formatting bar is visible >>(font, bold, underline, add table, etc.). I you place the curser in the >>body of your message, the little button on the left will say "body", if >>the curser is in your signature, trhe button says "preformat". >> > > Ah, well, that doesn't really have anything to do with anything. At > least not anything to do with why the signature should come after the > body. As has been said any number of times, the reason the signature > comes after the body is because that is what it *is*: the text that > comes after the body, and is separated by it by the sigdash. Wrong, *MY signature should come after MY body text*, and not way down below after a bunch of other body texts by any number of people. > > To speak of the sig being in the middle of the message is roughly the > equivalent of talking about the headers that come in the middle of the > message. > Wrong again, it's a matter of *MY signature coming after MY body text*. It's so clear, I don't see why you don't get it. > -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just create a new mail and make sure the formatting bar is visible > (font, bold, underline, add table, etc.). I you place the curser in the > body of your message, the little button on the left will say "body", if > the curser is in your signature, trhe button says "preformat". Ah, well, that doesn't really have anything to do with anything. At least not anything to do with why the signature should come after the body. As has been said any number of times, the reason the signature comes after the body is because that is what it *is*: the text that comes after the body, and is separated by it by the sigdash. To speak of the sig being in the middle of the message is roughly the equivalent of talking about the headers that come in the middle of the message. -- J.B. Moreno
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Just create a new mail and make sure the formatting bar is visible (font, bold, underline, add table, etc.). I you place the curser in the body of your message, the little button on the left will say "body", if the curser is in your signature, trhe button says "preformat". It is similar when selecting portions of forwarded or replied messages - some places are body, others are preformat. I think the whole idea on sounds good on paper, but it is confusing and makes editing messages a mess. I've had mails forwarded to me from lotus notes and when i reply and try to edit the forwarded parts (preformat), it often happens when navigating this portion with the curser keys, curser-down will cause the cureser to go down 2-5 lines, then jump back to where it was, then down 2-5 lines again, aroiund-and-around it goes, just not further down to where i want the damn curser. Please get rid of (or SERIOUSLY fix) the stupid preformat function. Holger Metzger wrote: > On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 19:10:37 +0200, Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>if the sig were just plain text (body) and not some weird preformat >>(whatever that is), then nothing would disappear. Why do wec need this >>silly and buggy preformat anyhow? It seems to serve no purpose more >>important than the damage it is causing (editing forwarded mails in the >>preformat part causes all kinds of chaos). >> > > The .signature is a plaintext file. What do you mean by "preformat"? > > Holger > -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is this preformat you refer to? > Is it the sigdash. I think it was the word "preformat" which threw everyone off, including me. "Preformat" tends to make people think of "preliminary formatting". I'd use the words "signature delimiter", myself. > IF the preformat is that then its required by USENET. > what's it for. Its purpose is to let server software know a siganture file is below. Its more for the benefit of the news client, not the server. In general, a news server will avoid modifying (or even examining, if it can help it) the body of a news article. For example, I could read your article fine, but when I replied Tin gutted your article after the example delimiter you posted. I had to cut and paste the relevant text back in. -- Brandon Hume- hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/ -> Solaris Snob and general NOCMonkey -> (Rated M, for Monkey!)
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
What is this preformat you refer to? Is it the sigdash. example: -- P.jones. IF the preformat is that then its required by USENET. what's it for. Its purpose is to let server software know a siganture file is below. And if the server software is set properly (set to do so) it can clip the sigdash and anything below it. Its in USENET rules that this can be done. But I've never seen a Newsgroup server do so. Peter Lairo wrote: > > if the sig were just plain text (body) and not some weird preformat > (whatever that is), then nothing would disappear. Why do wec need this > silly and buggy preformat anyhow? It seems to serve no purpose more > important than the damage it is causing (editing forwarded mails in the > preformat part causes all kinds of chaos). > > Holger Metzger wrote: > > > On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 16:19:35 -0400, J.B. Moreno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>It has the same problem in both places -- when replying the quoted text > >>"disappears" and inexperienced RECIPIENTS don't know why or what to do > >>about it. > >> > > > > You are right. I didn't think this through. Concerning the disappearing > > text... maybe that's why Outlook Express has a false sig delimeter *and* > > puts the sig above quoted text. It suddenly makes sense... :-) > > > > > >>The problem is more acute in news because of the greater number of such > >>programs, but it happens in mail too. > >> > >>The sig position is a format issue, it comes after the main body. > >> > > > > I 100% agree. > > > > Holger > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Peter Lairo -- -- Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling 616 Liberty Street|Who's Who. PHONE:540-632-5045, FAX:540-632-0868 Martinsville Va 24112-1809|[EMAIL PROTECTED], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet -- If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 19:10:37 +0200, Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > if the sig were just plain text (body) and not some weird preformat > (whatever that is), then nothing would disappear. Why do wec need this > silly and buggy preformat anyhow? It seems to serve no purpose more > important than the damage it is causing (editing forwarded mails in the > preformat part causes all kinds of chaos). The .signature is a plaintext file. What do you mean by "preformat"? Holger -- Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. (Douglas Adams) Netscape 6 Tips deutsch: http://www.hmetzger.de
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
if the sig were just plain text (body) and not some weird preformat (whatever that is), then nothing would disappear. Why do wec need this silly and buggy preformat anyhow? It seems to serve no purpose more important than the damage it is causing (editing forwarded mails in the preformat part causes all kinds of chaos). Holger Metzger wrote: > On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 16:19:35 -0400, J.B. Moreno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>It has the same problem in both places -- when replying the quoted text >>"disappears" and inexperienced RECIPIENTS don't know why or what to do >>about it. >> > > You are right. I didn't think this through. Concerning the disappearing > text... maybe that's why Outlook Express has a false sig delimeter *and* > puts the sig above quoted text. It suddenly makes sense... :-) > > >>The problem is more acute in news because of the greater number of such >>programs, but it happens in mail too. >> >>The sig position is a format issue, it comes after the main body. >> > > I 100% agree. > > Holger > -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 16:19:35 -0400, J.B. Moreno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It has the same problem in both places -- when replying the quoted text > "disappears" and inexperienced RECIPIENTS don't know why or what to do > about it. You are right. I didn't think this through. Concerning the disappearing text... maybe that's why Outlook Express has a false sig delimeter *and* puts the sig above quoted text. It suddenly makes sense... :-) > The problem is more acute in news because of the greater number of such > programs, but it happens in mail too. > > The sig position is a format issue, it comes after the main body. I 100% agree. Holger -- Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. (Douglas Adams) Netscape 6 Tips deutsch: http://www.hmetzger.de
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Holger Metzger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 09:33:51 +0200, Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > *Blocking* posters from having their sigs under their mails is not that > > important (i.e., not necessary). Having the option to choose where your > > sig goes IS important - but you knew that, you were just chosing to be > > difficult. > > IMHO, Mozilla should distinguish mail and news and where the .signature goes. > A .signature above quoted text is not that much of a problem in mail and > should be allowed, but for news the signature belongs at the end of the > posting, so Mozilla should prohibit putting the .signature above quoted > material. It has the same problem in both places -- when replying the quoted text "disappears" and inexperienced RECIPIENTS don't know why or what to do about it. The problem is more acute in news because of the greater number of such programs, but it happens in mail too. The sig position is a format issue, it comes after the main body. -- J.B. Moreno
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 09:33:51 +0200, Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > *Blocking* posters from having their sigs under their mails is not that > important (i.e., not necessary). Having the option to choose where your > sig goes IS important - but you knew that, you were just chosing to be > difficult. IMHO, Mozilla should distinguish mail and news and where the .signature goes. A .signature above quoted text is not that much of a problem in mail and should be allowed, but for news the signature belongs at the end of the posting, so Mozilla should prohibit putting the .signature above quoted material. Holger -- Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. (Douglas Adams) Netscape 6 Tips deutsch: http://www.hmetzger.de
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Nick Ambrose wrote: > Peter Lairo wrote: > >> THe whole idea of the sig being preformat (whatever that is) is >> stupid. It has messed up my mails more than once. If replying on top >> (which you consider to be wrong, but is done frequently anyhow), then >> the user should be allowed to decide where his sig goes too - it's >> that simple, because it doesn't break anything, it is only considered >> bad form by some. So should we top posters be dictated where our >> signature goes? I don't think it's that important, do you? >> > > If it is not that important, why are you still arguing about it ??? > *Blocking* posters from having their sigs under their mails is not that important (i.e., not necessary). Having the option to choose where your sig goes IS important - but you knew that, you were just chosing to be difficult. -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
"Ashant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I think there is a better way out to solve this: > > Just as in forwarding, there could be two ways to quoting text in a > reply - either reply inline or put the quoted text as an attachment. > Now the reply inline feature is meant for people who would like to > interleave their matter with the original, in order to maintain a sane > flow of thought. > > For the kind of stuff that Peter (the OP) wants, we could have a > second way - attaching quoted text. That way, what the reader sees is > only the reply, along with the signature and all. And if the reader is > interested in the earlier messages, they are always available as > attachments. > > Since mozilla already has the option to send forwarded text as an > attachment, why can't something like that be done for replying as > well? As long as that feature was limited to email and not newsgroups, it sounds like a good idea.
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Brian Z Jones wrote: > > Ian Hickson wrote: > >> On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Brian Z Jones wrote: >> >>> I disagree. I figure, you know what you sent me, you want to see what >>> I'm saying in reply first. >>> >> >> This fails on three counts. >> >> 1. I have no idea what I sent you. I send dozens and dozens of e-mails >>each day. There is no way I can remember what I sent you. >> >> 2. I receive hundreds of e-mails each day. If I can't work out what you're >>talking about within a few seconds, then I lose interest and move on. > > Well, both of these "fail" as rebuttals. > 1) That is what the SUBJECT line is for, to refresh you seemingly > limited memory with regard to our conversation. (Yes, I have a very bad memory. I shouldn't need a good one, the technology is there to support my disability.) The subject line helps, but not much. consider threads such as this one: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-talk/2001MayJun/.html Several hundred posts, almost as many arguments, most of which are happening in parallel. The subject line doesn't help. > 2) If you don't find our conversation interesting, then you should > rightly delete it anyway, regardless of format. I do. This doesn't help me when the conversation _is_ interesting, though. >> 3. On mailing lists, I usually didn't write the original message, and so >>there is no way I can remember "what I wrote". > > As for this, I agree. I was referring more to e-mail than to news. I > don't read newsgroups too often, but, as I've been doing a lot recently, > I have found that this is true [hence the format of my current reply]. For e-mails where there are only two participants, then for me top posting is not as critical a problem. It is still a pain, though. And if you agree that in mailing lists, newsgroups, and messages with multiple CCs, top posting is bad, then why would it suddenly be good for 1 to 1 posting? The same arguments hold. >>> [...] as your reply may get lost as I scroll on down, so I guess I >>> just like things my own way. >> >> If you are using a mail client which highlights text based on the ">" >> nesting level, you won't miss a thing. > > PINE doesn't do this, Yes it does. I'm using it right now and I get different colours for different indent levels. I can provide a screenshot on request if you don't believe me. -- Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL Netscape, Standards Compliance QA /. `- ' ( `--' +1 650 937 6593`- , ) - > ) \ irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _ (.' \) (.' -' __
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Peter Lairo wrote: > THe whole idea of the sig being preformat (whatever that is) is stupid. > It has messed up my mails more than once. If replying on top (which you > consider to be wrong, but is done frequently anyhow), then the user > should be allowed to decide where his sig goes too - it's that simple, > because it doesn't break anything, it is only considered bad form by > some. So should we top posters be dictated where our signature goes? I > don't think it's that important, do you? > If it is not that important, why are you still arguing about it ???
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Peter,
Afraid your going to lose on this one. I think Topposting is more logical and because
I read a lot of emails anews post its a time saver to me to see the reply first at
next thread. USENET Rules since back in the 60's and UNiX Days have an absolutely
strict rule about here the signature is supposed to show and even the requirement of
the sigdash separator so that servers can chop it off to save space.
USENET does allow for top posting although the frown on the practice. They don't ban
it.
But where the signatture lies is set in stone. Moving it would be akin to
assassinating some king or queen.
Christopher Jahn wrote:
>
> And it came to pass that Peter Lairo wrote:
>
> > THe whole idea of the sig being preformat (whatever that is)
> > is stupid. It has messed up my mails more than once. If
> > replying on top (which you consider to be wrong, but is done
> > frequently anyhow), then the user should be allowed to
> > decide where his sig goes too - it's that simple, because it
> > doesn't break anything, it is only considered bad form by
> > some. So should we top posters be dictated where our
> > signature goes? I don't think it's that important, do you?
> >
>
> Here's a thought - go write your own non-compliant newsreader.
> Then it will do any damn ignorant thing you want it to do.
>
> --
> }:-) Christopher Jahn
> {:-( Dionysian Reveler
>
> This is precisely the sort of thing that people who like this
> sort of thing will like.
>
> To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
--
--
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street|Who's Who. PHONE:540-632-5045, FAX:540-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112-1809|[EMAIL PROTECTED], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
--
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Brian Z Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If you are using a mail client which highlights text based on the ">" >> nesting level, you won't miss a thing. > > >PINE doesn't do this, and was my main reader for a long time [until >about six months ago]. I've noticed Outlook do this occasionally, but it >seems random. Either way, I've started to use Moz for my news [which >does do this], and may switch my mail over once it hits v1.0. Here's a newsflash for you --- pine has been doing this kind of highlighting for a long time now! Look around in the config menu for options to enable/disable this. Ashant.
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
I think there is a better way out to solve this: Just as in forwarding, there could be two ways to quoting text in a reply - either reply inline or put the quoted text as an attachment. Now the reply inline feature is meant for people who would like to interleave their matter with the original, in order to maintain a sane flow of thought. For the kind of stuff that Peter (the OP) wants, we could have a second way - attaching quoted text. That way, what the reader sees is only the reply, along with the signature and all. And if the reader is interested in the earlier messages, they are always available as attachments. Since mozilla already has the option to send forwarded text as an attachment, why can't something like that be done for replying as well? I had posted this suggestion earlier on npm.wishlist where the discussion started, but I had assumed that this feature already exists. Now I know it works only for forwards and not for replies. Ashant.
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
On Sun, 01 Jul 2001 23:29:09 -0700, Brian Z Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> somehow managed to type: >1) That is what the SUBJECT line is for, to refresh you seemingly >limited memory with regard to our conversation. On newsgroups and mailing lists, a single subject line can encompass a hundred posts, and several different directions of topic drift. Charles Miller
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Brian Z Jones wrote: >> 3. On mailing lists, I usually didn't write the original message, and so >>there is no way I can remember "what I wrote". I run my own mailing list for me and my friends. Just a place for people to spill their thoughts and for us to plan stuff and such. It gets a surprisingly high amount of traffic per day, for only like 7 active members. Usually about 30 or 40 emails a day. And everyone in it except for me doesn't quote anything. I get so completely lost trying to figure out what is going on. I'll see a message like: "Yeah, that's a great idea" with no text quoted, not even who they are replying to. That's impossible to follow. If you quote below your reply, I read it like this: "Yeah that's a great idea" "Yeah that's a great idea" And now I understand it. If the reply was below the quoted text, I read the text and then the reply and it makes perfect sense. And if it is a topic I remember, I just scroll past the quoted and read the reply. Much easier way of doing things. > > > > As for this, I agree. I was referring more to e-mail than to news. I > don't read newsgroups too often, but, as I've been doing a lot recently, > I have found that this is true [hence the format of my current reply]. Mailing lists aren't newsgroups. Mine runs through listbot. You address mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and it is automatically sent to anyone subscribed to the list. > > >> >> >>> [...] as your reply may get lost as I scroll on down, so I guess I just >>> like things my own way. >>> >> >> If you are using a mail client which highlights text based on the ">" >> nesting level, you won't miss a thing. > > > > PINE doesn't do this, and was my main reader for a long time [until > about six months ago]. I've noticed Outlook do this occasionally, but it Outlook is a bad example of a mail client, on a standards complience view. And it did/does have some issues with opening blazingly large holes in my system's security
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Peter Lairo wrote: > consider to be wrong, but is done frequently anyhow), then the user > should be allowed to decide where his sig goes too - it's that simple, > because it doesn't break anything, it is only considered bad form by > some. So should we top posters be dictated where our signature goes? I > don't think it's that important, do you? Except that it *does* break things, as has been pointed out time and again. Nearly any software that highlights or removes signatures will then get confused about the quoted text. -- http://www.classic-games.com/ http://www.indie-games.com/ I've often thought intelligence agencies should recruit idiots, as idiots seem able to infiltrate any group in large numbers.
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Brian Z Jones wrote: > I disagree. I figure, you know what you sent me, you want to see what > I'm saying in reply first. I've only left your part quoted to refresh Your own message is a perfect counter example. Until I scrolled down, I didn't even know you were replying to my post, much less what my post from a few days back was about. > So, I would like the .sig to be put above the quoted text, too. Now, if > this does pose problems with other mail/news reads, that's a different > story, but they should be using Mozilla anyway. :p Actually, I saw an RFE a day or two ago to have Mozilla chopping off old signatures from replied-to text, and there's a strong case to be made for that--yet what you're proposing screws it up completely. -- http://www.classic-games.com/ http://www.indie-games.com/ I've often thought intelligence agencies should recruit idiots, as idiots seem able to infiltrate any group in large numbers.
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Brian Z Jones wrote: > >>I disagree. I figure, you know what you sent me, you want to see what >>I'm saying in reply first. >> > > This fails on three counts. > > 1. I have no idea what I sent you. I send dozens and dozens of e-mails >each day. There is no way I can remember what I sent you. > > 2. I receive hundreds of e-mails each day. If I can't work out what you're >talking about within a few seconds, then I lose interest and move on. Well, both of these "fail" as rebuttals. 1) That is what the SUBJECT line is for, to refresh you seemingly limited memory with regard to our conversation. 2) If you don't find our conversation interesting, then you should rightly delete it anyway, regardless of format. > 3. On mailing lists, I usually didn't write the original message, and so >there is no way I can remember "what I wrote". As for this, I agree. I was referring more to e-mail than to news. I don't read newsgroups too often, but, as I've been doing a lot recently, I have found that this is true [hence the format of my current reply]. > > >>[...] as your reply may get lost as I scroll on down, so I guess I just >>like things my own way. >> > > If you are using a mail client which highlights text based on the ">" > nesting level, you won't miss a thing. PINE doesn't do this, and was my main reader for a long time [until about six months ago]. I've noticed Outlook do this occasionally, but it seems random. Either way, I've started to use Moz for my news [which does do this], and may switch my mail over once it hits v1.0. -bZj
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Peter Lairo wrote: > THe whole idea of the sig being preformat (whatever that is) is stupid. > It has messed up my mails more than once. If replying on top (which you > consider to be wrong, but is done frequently anyhow), then the user > should be allowed to decide where his sig goes too - it's that simple, > because it doesn't break anything, it is only considered bad form by > some. So should we top posters be dictated where our signature goes? I > don't think it's that important, do you? > > How about if while top responding, the sig file is placed at the top as > regular text. You cannot force people to follow a standard that you > THINK is good form. If there are are enough others who like it a > different way, and no harm is being done (what is inconveniencing is a > matter of oppinion), then the coice must be up to the user! > > Please allow top replyers to have their signature where it makes sense > to them - namely immediately befow their reply. Thank You, ladies and > gentlemen. > > Regards, > Peter Lairo > - Habitual Top-Replyer (and OK with that) - > > > > Ian Hickson wrote: > > >>On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Brian Z Jones wrote: >> >> >>>I disagree. I figure, you know what you sent me, you want to see what >>>I'm saying in reply first. >>> >>> >>This fails on three counts. >> >>1. I have no idea what I sent you. I send dozens and dozens of e-mails >> each day. There is no way I can remember what I sent you. >> >>2. I receive hundreds of e-mails each day. If I can't work out what you're >> talking about within a few seconds, then I lose interest and move on. >> >>3. On mailing lists, I usually didn't write the original message, and so >> there is no way I can remember "what I wrote". >> >> >> >> >>>[...] as your reply may get lost as I scroll on down, so I guess I just >>>like things my own way. >>> >>> >>If you are using a mail client which highlights text based on the ">" >>nesting level, you won't miss a thing. >> >> >> > > The problem with folks positioning whatever they want wherever they want is quite problematic. There are a lot of newsreaders out there that rely on the signature delimiter "-- " to determine where the message ends and the signature begins. After the signature is nothing and is treated as such. Mozilla et al will disregard the signature in a quoted reply, therefore everything below the signature is ignored. Not good . -- Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion Novell MCNE-5/CNI UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org Post To Group ONLY, No Email Please!!
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
And it came to pass that Peter Lairo wrote:
> THe whole idea of the sig being preformat (whatever that is)
> is stupid. It has messed up my mails more than once. If
> replying on top (which you consider to be wrong, but is done
> frequently anyhow), then the user should be allowed to
> decide where his sig goes too - it's that simple, because it
> doesn't break anything, it is only considered bad form by
> some. So should we top posters be dictated where our
> signature goes? I don't think it's that important, do you?
>
Here's a thought - go write your own non-compliant newsreader.
Then it will do any damn ignorant thing you want it to do.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
This is precisely the sort of thing that people who like this
sort of thing will like.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
THe whole idea of the sig being preformat (whatever that is) is stupid. It has messed up my mails more than once. If replying on top (which you consider to be wrong, but is done frequently anyhow), then the user should be allowed to decide where his sig goes too - it's that simple, because it doesn't break anything, it is only considered bad form by some. So should we top posters be dictated where our signature goes? I don't think it's that important, do you? How about if while top responding, the sig file is placed at the top as regular text. You cannot force people to follow a standard that you THINK is good form. If there are are enough others who like it a different way, and no harm is being done (what is inconveniencing is a matter of oppinion), then the coice must be up to the user! Please allow top replyers to have their signature where it makes sense to them - namely immediately befow their reply. Thank You, ladies and gentlemen. Regards, Peter Lairo - Habitual Top-Replyer (and OK with that) - Ian Hickson wrote: > On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Brian Z Jones wrote: > >>I disagree. I figure, you know what you sent me, you want to see what >>I'm saying in reply first. >> > > This fails on three counts. > > 1. I have no idea what I sent you. I send dozens and dozens of e-mails >each day. There is no way I can remember what I sent you. > > 2. I receive hundreds of e-mails each day. If I can't work out what you're >talking about within a few seconds, then I lose interest and move on. > > 3. On mailing lists, I usually didn't write the original message, and so >there is no way I can remember "what I wrote". > > > >>[...] as your reply may get lost as I scroll on down, so I guess I just >>like things my own way. >> > > If you are using a mail client which highlights text based on the ">" > nesting level, you won't miss a thing. > > -- Regards, Peter Lairo
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
And it came to pass that Brian Z Jones wrote:
> I disagree. I figure, you know what you sent me, you want to
> see what I'm saying in reply first. I've only left your part
> quoted to refresh you of any possible specifics, to save you
> the time of looking in your 'sent' folder.
You illustrate the intrinsic flaw of your request quite
admirably; YOu start off in this message as if you and I have
been communicating; we have NOT. Unless I scroll down, I have
no idea what you're babbling about. And THEN I have to scroll
back up to read what you're actually saying.
Very sloppy format.
>Of course, the
> jargon file states that you should break reply to each peice
> on it's own, which I absolutely think is annoying, as your
> reply may get lost as I scroll on down, so I guess I just
> like things my own way.
That's why you are given options to highlight quotes in any
decent clien; in Messenger 4.x, you could have quotes
italicized.
In Mozilla, you can do that PLUS have the quotes appear as a
different color.
Clients like Xnews all not only color changes, but each quote
layer can be a different color. And if THAT isn't enough, it
has a "skip quote" button that takes you directly to each new
section.
>
> So, I would like the .sig to be put above the quoted text,
> too.
And that's still not likely to happen, as it's a stupid idea.
Signatures ALWAYS go at the BOTTOM of a message.
Didn't they teach you ANYTHING in school? ;-)
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Find out what you can't do and don't do it! (Alf)
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when"start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001, Brian Z Jones wrote: > > I disagree. I figure, you know what you sent me, you want to see what > I'm saying in reply first. This fails on three counts. 1. I have no idea what I sent you. I send dozens and dozens of e-mails each day. There is no way I can remember what I sent you. 2. I receive hundreds of e-mails each day. If I can't work out what you're talking about within a few seconds, then I lose interest and move on. 3. On mailing lists, I usually didn't write the original message, and so there is no way I can remember "what I wrote". > [...] as your reply may get lost as I scroll on down, so I guess I just > like things my own way. If you are using a mail client which highlights text based on the ">" nesting level, you won't miss a thing. -- Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL Netscape, Standards Compliance QA /. `- ' ( `--' +1 650 937 6593`- , ) - > ) \ irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _ (.' \) (.' -' __
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
I disagree. I figure, you know what you sent me, you want to see what I'm saying in reply first. I've only left your part quoted to refresh you of any possible specifics, to save you the time of looking in your 'sent' folder. Of course, the jargon file states that you should break reply to each peice on it's own, which I absolutely think is annoying, as your reply may get lost as I scroll on down, so I guess I just like things my own way. So, I would like the .sig to be put above the quoted text, too. Now, if this does pose problems with other mail/news reads, that's a different story, but they should be using Mozilla anyway. :p -bZj PS: I just noticed something that may be a 'bug'. If I use the '<-' (left arrow) key to move back in my typing, it doesn't move up to the end next line when it reaches the beginning of the current line. Anyone else notice this? [I'm using Moz 0.9.2] Greg Miller wrote: > Ashant wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Lairo) wrote: >> >> >>> I *disagree* that having sigs *always* at the bottom is better. >>> >>> Most business communications *require* that the original text be >>> quoted, no matter how long it is (I've had communications where a >>> mail went back and forth about 20 times and the quoted part was >>> enormous - fortunately, the signatures where all below their >>> respective texts, so the document remained legible). >>> >> >> Hmmm ... given the large number of people work in offices and require >> a lot of official correspondence, it would be interesting to see a >> large number of requests for this feature. Hey don't take this as a >> criticism, I am only trying to see from your point of view ... >> >> Ashant. >> > > This has been discussed before. As I recall, putting sigs on top causes > problems with software that considers everything below the sig as part > of the sig (chopping it off on some mailing lists, for example). > > That said, top-posting is evil, regardless of how sigs are handled.
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
Ashant wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Lairo) wrote: > > >>I *disagree* that having sigs *always* at the bottom is better. >> >>Most business communications *require* that the original text be quoted, >>no matter how long it is (I've had communications where a mail went back >>and forth about 20 times and the quoted part was enormous - fortunately, >>the signatures where all below their respective texts, so the document >>remained legible). >> > > Hmmm ... given the large number of people work in offices and require > a lot of official correspondence, it would be interesting to see a > large number of requests for this feature. Hey don't take this as a > criticism, I am only trying to see from your point of view ... > > Ashant. > This has been discussed before. As I recall, putting sigs on top causes problems with software that considers everything below the sig as part of the sig (chopping it off on some mailing lists, for example). That said, top-posting is evil, regardless of how sigs are handled. -- http://www.classic-games.com/ http://www.indie-games.com/ I've often thought intelligence agencies should recruit idiots, as idiots seem able to infiltrate any group in large numbers.
Re: Mozilla should put the Signature ABOVE the Quoted Text, when "start my reply above the quoted text" is selected in prefs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Lairo) wrote: >I *disagree* that having sigs *always* at the bottom is better. > >Most business communications *require* that the original text be quoted, >no matter how long it is (I've had communications where a mail went back >and forth about 20 times and the quoted part was enormous - fortunately, >the signatures where all below their respective texts, so the document >remained legible). Hmmm ... given the large number of people work in offices and require a lot of official correspondence, it would be interesting to see a large number of requests for this feature. Hey don't take this as a criticism, I am only trying to see from your point of view ... Ashant.
