When replying to an email that you sent earlier, how would you go about
removing the previous signature?
Some times you communicate to someone and end up with a lot of copies of
old signatures. Thunderbird at least some of the time detects that your
signature is already there and removes
* Joseph [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-18 13:08 -0500]:
When replying to an email that you sent earlier, how would you go about
removing the previous signature?
I use vim as my editor - I have a macro defined in vimrc
map ,ds :.,/^-- $/-1dCRO
(ds for delete-to-sigdashes). It's not automatic
On 18 Feb 2008 13:08 -0500, by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph):
When replying to an email that you sent earlier, how would you go about
removing the previous signature?
Run a message through this awk script before passing it to your
editor. (Set $editor to a wrapper script.)
** cut **
{if ($0
Description: PGP signature
On 02/18/08, Breen Mullins wrote:
* Joseph [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-18 13:08 -0500]:
When replying to an email that you sent earlier, how would you go about
removing the previous signature?
I use vim as my editor - I have a macro defined in vimrc
map ,ds :.,/^-- $/-1dCRO
(ds
* Joseph [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-18 14:33 -0500]:
Wow, that is really slick.
But not original to me - I snarfed something similar a long time ago...
For others who may want to try this, I had to make some changes to get
it to work.
You changed my definition. I actually do type
setting (+%s/\n\n/\r/) or you can make
a key mapping out of it (map ,oe :%s/\n\n/\r/CR), whichever you
prefer.
~Kyle
- --
Truth springs from argument amongst friends.
-- David Hume
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Thank you for using
On Jan 4, 2008 4:17 PM, Paul Puschmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... snip ...
unset signature
set signature=~/.mutt/signatures/lnx_standard.txt
send-hook . set signature=~/.mutt/signatures/lnx_standard.txt
Can you tell me which of these settings is obsolete and howto delete
the signature
Dilip M [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 04:55:48PM +0530:
On Jan 4, 2008 4:17 PM, Paul Puschmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... snip ...
unset signature
set signature=~/.mutt/signatures/lnx_standard.txt
send-hook . set signature=~/.mutt/signatures/lnx_standard.txt
Can
Hi,
I use four different profiles in mutt, all loaded via F9 to F12.
I use the following code to set my signatures, but it doesn't work
that well.
unset signature
set signature=~/.mutt/signatures/lnx_standard.txt
send-hook . set signature=~/.mutt/signatures/lnx_standard.txt
Can you tell me
=- Paul Puschmann wrote on Fri 4.Jan'08 at 12:57:47 +0100 -=
Okay. When I compose a new message (like now) I still get the
signature of my account F12 inserted in my editor.
Is it useful to use send-hooks or is set signature enough if I
simply like to have a usual signature in each mail I
Hi list,
I am a rather new user of mutt. I was wondering how to add these cool
proverbs by famous people to the end of my message randomly.
I guess it has a connection to fortune in bash? Or am I wrong?
Rgds,
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 the mental interface of
Umut Tabak told:
Hi list,
I am a rather new user of mutt. I was wondering how to add these cool
proverbs by famous people to the end of my message randomly.
I guess it has a connection to fortune in bash? Or am I wrong?
set signature=`which
send-hook PATTERN set signature=SIGNATURE_FILE
That's pretty cool, I'll try that to append a signature based on
outgoing address.
There is another notable feature, you can set SIGNATURE_FILE to a pipe
like this:
send-hook PATTERN set signature=SIGNATURE_FILE|
mutt
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 07:12:59PM +0100, Arthur Dent wrote:
I am not, nor ever have been, a top poster. I would however just like to play
Devil's Advocate for a moment and just point out a couple of examples where
one might be grateful for it:
When usenet newsgroups were more popular than
. It is not necessary for you to archive the
entire list locally.
--
Marc Wilson | Audacity, and again, audacity, and always audacity.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- G.J. Danton
pgpSgI6EGsAN0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
pgpoAwVJxxA6V.pgp
Description: PGP signature
:
Is there a way to tell mutt that I write my response at the top of the
message, not the bottom, and that it should insert the signature right
above the line that says On date, name wrote:
Top-posting is evil, and should always be discouraged. I suppose since you
do that, you don't edit your
, that's extremely annoying.
~Kyle
- --
What greater thing is there for human souls than to feel that they are
joined for life - to be with each other in silent unspeakable
memories.
-- George Eliot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Thank
of the Orient shore, Mocha, far off, the
fragrant berries bore. Taste the dark fluid with a dainty lip,
Digestion waits on pleasure as you sip.
-- Pope Leo XII
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Thank you for using encryption
On 14/09/07 09:03 -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
On Friday, September 14 at 09:40 AM, quoth Ben Gladwell:
Maybe someone should explain to me what's so bad about top posting.
Seems like a matter of preference to me.
To quote the jargon file:
The problem with this practice is neatly summed up
, and
I'm allowed some error in judgment. :) And sometimes I find it best to
put text both before and after the quoted material.
*
As for your original question, because I sometimes top-post and usually
do not, I don't normally use mutt for attaching my signature at all.
Instead I have an editor
On 2007-09-14, Ben Gladwell wrote
Maybe someone should explain to me what's so bad about top posting.
Seems like a matter of preference to me.
It *is* a matter of preference, as are good manners. Top posting puts
the burden of putting the poster's reply in context and logical order on
the
On 2007-09-14, I wrote
HP Confidential
This e-mail message and any attachments thereto ...
My appologies to the list.
I didn't intend to include the disclaimer, but forgot to delete it. I
should stick to posting replies from home.
--
David Ellement
When I reply to a message, the signature you see below is appended to
the very end of my reply. Is there a way to tell mutt that I write my
response at the top of the message, not the bottom, and that it should
insert the signature right above the line that says
On date, name wrote:
instead
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:04:59AM -0400, Ben Gladwell wrote:
Is there a way to tell mutt that I write my response at the top of the
message, not the bottom, and that it should insert the signature right
above the line that says On date, name wrote:
Top-posting is evil, and should always
You can accomplish this by setting signature in a send-hook, like so:
send-hook PATTERN set signature=SIGNATURE_FILE
That's pretty cool, I'll try that to append a signature based on outgoing
address.
Greets
Alex
--
* http://www.lespocky.de
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 04:26:14PM +0200, Alexander Dahl wrote:
You can accomplish this by setting signature in a send-hook, like so:
send-hook PATTERN set signature=SIGNATURE_FILE
That's pretty cool, I'll try that to append a signature based on
outgoing address.
There is another
* Thor Andreassen on Saturday, September 08, 2007 at 02:16:51 +0200
send-hook PATTERN set signature=SIGNATURE_FILE
Probably should be quoted:
send-hook PATTERN ' set signature=SIGNATURE_FILE'
^
if you leave a space here
the command won't be recorded in history.
c
I understand that I can set $signature to a file name with my signature.
Then all subsequent outgoing messages will have that signature appended.
Or I can set $signature to something else or remove the file. Then all
subsequent messages will not have a signature appended.
But what I want
On 2007-09-08, Kai Grossjohann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand that I can set $signature to a file name with my signature.
Then all subsequent outgoing messages will have that signature appended.
Or I can set $signature to something else or remove the file. Then all
subsequent messages
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 12:30:42AM +0200, Kai Grossjohann wrote:
I understand that I can set $signature to a file name with my signature.
Then all subsequent outgoing messages will have that signature appended.
Or I can set $signature to something else or remove the file. Then all
subsequent
: They shouted the
PGP signature could NOT be verified. error, just like failed
verifications. The upcase S is intended to appear only when everything
is entirely sure.
Bye!Alain.
--
Mutt compressed folders tip for stable archive timestamp:
| open-hook \\.gz$ gzip -cd '%f' '%t' ; ret=$? ; touch
. Previously, partially
signed messages were considered yet more suspiciously: They shouted the
PGP signature could NOT be verified. error, just like failed
verifications. The upcase S is intended to appear only when everything
is entirely sure.
OK, thanks!
This leads to:
mutt random tip #6
A signed
) --]
gpg: Signature made Tue 01 May 2007 03:34:27 PM CEST using DSA key ID
gpg: Good signature from xx xxx
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key
01 May 2007 03:50:24 PM CEST) --]
gpg: Signature made Tue 01 May 2007 03:34:27 PM CEST using DSA key ID
gpg: Good signature from xx xxx
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg: There is no indication that the signature
' in front
of your message changes to an 'S' after reading it.
You can test this by adding a local signature to a key for which this
happens (gpg --lsign-key keyid).
And i haven't added a local signature to your key :-)
Regards,
Sander.
--
| I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel
==
Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand.
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.
pgpNmAEIlDN1h.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Stefano Sabatini wrote:
This is my crypto setting:
# %f: message file
# %s: signature file
# %a: pgp_sign_as value
set pgp_decode_command=gpg %?p? --passphrase-fd 0? --no-verbose --batch
--output - %f
set pgp_verify_command=gpg --no-verbose --batch --output - --verify %s %f
set
.
In most cases it works just fine, but in some cases I get something
as:
[-- PGP output follows (current time: Tue 01 May 2007 03:50:24 PM CEST) --]
gpg: Signature made Tue 01 May 2007 03:34:27 PM CEST using DSA key ID
gpg: Good signature from xx xxx
On date Tuesday 2007-05-01 11:31:18 -0400, Todd Zullinger muttered:
Stefano Sabatini wrote:
This is my crypto setting:
# %f: message file
# %s: signature file
# %a: pgp_sign_as value
set pgp_decode_command=gpg %?p? --passphrase-fd 0? --no-verbose --batch
--output - %f
set
pgpGN83qHLLJZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
mutt displayed in the echo/prompt line (ehm, the line at the bottom of the
mutt layout, where usually are inserted commands and arguments):
Part of this message has not been signed.
and when I opened signed message in other folders:
PGP signature successfully verified.
(by the way: can someone
On date Tuesday 2007-05-01 21:24:55 +0200, Stefano Sabatini muttered:
[...]
(by the way: can someone suggest why this message doesn't appear with
my (quite bloated) configuration? I have the line:
color message brightcyan default
so it doesn't seem to be a color problem. Do others
Hello Stefano,
On Monday, April 16, 2007 at 12:01:57 +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
the body of the mail (which is supposedly the part which is signed).
There's more signed: The MIME part mini-header, the empty head/body
separator line, and of course the body. Everything between the MIME
, but it fails when I do it manually, saving in distinct
files the message and the signature.
For example if I save the (clear) message in message, and the
signature in signature.asc, then the command:
gpg --verify signature.asc message
The message *body* or the message itself? Generally
and the signature.
For example if I save the (clear) message in message, and the
signature in signature.asc, then the command:
gpg --verify signature.asc message
The message *body* or the message itself? Generally the message
includes all sorts of things (headers and such) that are not part
Hi to all mutters, and sorry for the likely dumb question I'm posting.
I'm testing mutt and gnupg, I can verify with no problem messages
signatures, but it fails when I do it manually, saving in distinct
files the message and the signature.
For example if I save the (clear) message in message
* mal content [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2007-03-31 21:05:08 Sat:
This may sound like a phenomenally idiotic question, but I'd
like to somehow send an email to a friend with a broken
signature to make it look as if the message has been modified
in transit.
One way to achieve this would be to send
On 31/03/07, David Haguenauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* mal content [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2007-03-31 21:05:08 Sat:
This may sound like a phenomenally idiotic question, but I'd
like to somehow send an email to a friend with a broken
signature to make it look as if the message has been modified
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 02:40:27PM +0200,
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 8 lines which said:
Is there a way to display the message Good signature from... *after*
the message, not between the headers and the messages? Or to hide it
unless specifically called?
OK
.
msg31887/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
* Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-10-16 14:40 (CEST)]
Is there a way to display the message Good signature from... *after*
the message, not between the headers and the messages? Or to hide it
unless specifically called? (Yes, I've look at the documentation and
in many .muttrc
[I know it might have bad security consequences, but I really don't
like to see most of my screen eaten by the outout of GPG checking PGP
signatures.]
Is there a way to display the message Good signature from... *after*
the message, not between the headers and the messages? Or to hide it
unless
is not enough and three are too many.
msg31860/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
])
There is a definite parallel between shots of tequila and a woman's breasts.
One is not enough and three are too many.
Mutt GPG integration is so very good it's almost a crime
to suggest a change.
In a perfect world, I think I'd want to know only
if the signature did *NOT* check out against the
keyserver copy
world, I think I'd want to know only
if the signature did *NOT* check out against the
keyserver copy.
The part of his question I replied to, is the part that doesn't
require a patch for mutt, if I'm correct. I believe my reply is
valid; if you want to hide GnuPG output, then don't verify
it unless specifically called?
unset pgp_verify_sig
In a perfect world, I think I'd want to know only
if the signature did *NOT* check out against the
keyserver copy.
The part of his question I replied to, is the part that doesn't
require a patch for mutt, if I'm correct. I believe my
At 10:27 AM EDT on October 16 PeterKorman sent off:
In a perfect world, I think I'd want to know only
if the signature did *NOT* check out against the
keyserver copy.
IMHO, that would weaken the point of crypto signatures. First, most*
signature failures are innocent, being due to MTA
material in context,
#but no more; most readers will be able to refer to the earlier article
#itself, if need be. Never write on the same line as a quotation, except
#in lists and notes; generally leave a wholly blank line between. Do not
#quote the header or the signature, unless it is relevant to do so
was taught some lessons by the guardians. :-)
Thank you.
Bo
Also remember some people have taught their editors to remove sigs
automatically while replying. Just imagine what would happen to the
message with a top signature.
--
Vikram Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
heat from
netiquette guardians.', I was taught some lessons by the guardians. :-)
Thank you.
Bo
Also remember some people have taught their editors to remove sigs
automatically while replying. Just imagine what would happen to the
message with a top signature.
Yeah, the fullquote
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:49:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Top posting sends the message I am so much more important than all
several hundred of you others on this list that I don't care how much of
your time I waste.
Bottom posting says I respect the others on this list and I will
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 01:37:20AM -0400, Paul Brannan wrote:
BTW, why did this post show up in my inbox rather than in my mutt
folder? My procmailrc searches for ^TO.*mutt-users, but mutt-users
doesn't seem to be anywhere in the headers (unless I missed it somehow).
What part of the header
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 10:10:31AM +0100, Sam Bashton wrote:
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 01:37:20AM -0400, Paul Brannan wrote:
BTW, why did this post show up in my inbox rather than in my mutt
folder? My procmailrc searches for ^TO.*mutt-users, but mutt-users
doesn't seem to be anywhere in
://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
msg30756/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 01:37:20AM -0400, Paul Brannan wrote:
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:49:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Top posting sends the message I am so much more important than all
several hundred of you others on this list that I don't care how much of
your time I waste.
* Paul Brannan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-09-06 09:03]:
if someone sends you a long email (and it is necessary
and/or appropriate to quote the email or a large portion
of it), then replying at the top saves the reader the
time of scrolling to the bottom to find the reply.
so you top-post
RTM !
argh!
(I'm afraid Elm is still programmed into my fingers, just like vi. :)
and apparently the nine line signature
with the trailing spaces is, too...
so, fix your From+MID+sig and upgrade to mutt 1.4.
or just go back to elm.
some people should stay with elm, pine, whatever so you can
On Fri, 06 Sep 2002, Paul Brannan wrote:
folder? My procmailrc searches for ^TO.*mutt-users, but mutt-users
doesn't seem to be anywhere in the headers (unless I missed it somehow).
Try this:
:0:
* ^TO_mutt-users@mutt\.org
mutt
:0:
* ^TO_mutt-users@gbnet\.net
mutt
:0:
*
At 1:37 AM EDT on September 6 Paul Brannan sent off:
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:49:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree. While bottom posting is appropriate for most public forums
(because discussions on these forums generally involve a point-by-point
debate), there is a valid
* Sven Guckes [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-09-06 13:54 +0200]:
* Paul Brannan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-09-06 09:03]:
What part of the header should I be filtering on?
using TO is fine.
In my experience, it's best to find a header set by the list processing
software and filter on that header.
to do with M$.
How odd. I THINK it is better to put the reply AFTER the quoted text
and this has absolutely _nothing_ to do with M$.
It is natural (to me) to put important part (my reply) before
non-important part (quote) and keep my signature closer to the main
body. This also makes an email
Jussi Ekholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But please, remember to use correct signature delimiter (-- ,
that is dash-dash-space)! O:-)
ITYM 'that is dash-dash-space, dammit'.
Charles
--
---
Charles Cazabon
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 06:17:34PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
OK. I found the messages and I am not glad about those so-called rules.
I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text
A: Top posters
Q: What's the most annoying thing about email these days?
--
Jonathan Perkin - BBC
* Bo Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-09-04 23:17]:
OK. I found the messages and I am not glad about those so-called rules.
I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text and ..
[unedited fullquote]
thankyou. that's certainly enough.
Sven
--
echo black_list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
) to put important part (my
reply) before non-important part (quote)
Yes. Just as it's natural to answer questions before they're asked.
and keep my signature closer to the main body.
Yes. Just as you put your signature at the top of paper letters.
This also makes an email easier
I post an email, asking a simple question. What happened?
I suppose that not only Will know the answer. However, I was defined as
a M$ follower, a corrupted newbie. I was then directed to a manner
class.
After I expressed my personal preference. I get more emails, not limited
to what you
Bo Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I post an email, asking a simple question. What happened?
You ignored thirty years of netiquette and suggested it was okay to do so.
Are there good manners?
Most of us still have them. You don't.
Charles
--
lurk.
when in rome...
--
Peter Abplanalp
PGP: pgp.mit.edu
msg30724/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
At 9:39 PM EDT on September 4 Bo Peng sent off:
There is nothing wrong with either order. Nobody is 'corrupted' by
anything.
Wrong. People are.
Software as good as mutt should be neutral between these
preferences, i.e. provides support for both styles.
No, good != neutral. Good
This will be my last post about this topic. I am not gonna waste more
time on this trivial issue, even if it is important to many of you.
I do not know exactly how many people reply before quoted message but
over 90% of my daily emails are in this style and I can see this kind of
emails all
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Sep 5, 2002, Bo Peng wrote:
I do not know exactly how many people reply before quoted message but
over 90% of my daily emails are in this style and I can see this kind of
emails all over the Internet. Maybe they are all bad-mannered people,
maybe they are all corrupted by M$, I feel
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 05:00:19PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
This will be my last post about this topic. I am not gonna waste more
time on this trivial issue, even if it is important to many of you.
Hi Bo,
One time, about, oh, twenty or so years ago I felt the same way you currently
do about top
msg30733/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 06:01:48PM -0600, Peter T. Abplanalp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:49:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for the manner on this group, you are correct. This group can
be a little rougher in its treatment of newbies than most others.
I'm not sure why they
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 05:00:19PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
This will be my last post about this topic. I am not gonna waste more
time on this trivial issue, even if it is important to many of you.
I do not know exactly how many people reply before quoted message but
over 90% of my daily
Hi, Everyone,
Mutt automatically put the signature at the end of the email. Can I let
it be put before the quoted text?
Thanks.
--
Bo Peng
Department of Statistics
Rice University
http://www.stat.rice.edu/~bpeng
Office: DH2076, (713) 348-2863
# Bo Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-09-04 10:24:57 + (-0500):
Hi, Everyone,
Mutt automatically put the signature at the end of the email. Can I let
it be put before the quoted text?
yes. use Outlook.
--
FreeBSD 4.6-STABLE
5:32PM up 14 days, 23:25, 8 users, load averages: 0.02
* Bo Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] [09/04/2002 18:01]:
Mutt automatically put the signature at the end of the email. Can I let
it be put before the quoted text?
This discussion (Message-ID 8gcg1a$qte$[EMAIL PROTECTED]) may
be helpful for you.
--
Best regards
Heiko
I am sorry but I could not find this message. Could you tell me its
subject or date? Is it in mutt-user group?
Thanks.
Bo
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 08:16:12PM +0200, Heiko Heil wrote:
* Bo Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] [09/04/2002 18:01]:
Mutt automatically put the signature at the end of the email
Bo Peng wrote:
I am sorry but I could not find this message. Could you tell me its
subject or date? Is it in mutt-user group?
This discussion (Message-ID 8gcg1a$qte$[EMAIL PROTECTED]) may
be helpful for you.
It's a message ID. Go search Google Groups for it; you'll get a 12
message
OK. I found the messages and I am not glad about those so-called rules.
I THINK it is better to put the reply BEFORE quoted text and this has
nothing to do with M$. It is natural (to me) to put important part (my
reply) before non-important part (quote) and keep my signature closer to
the main
(if they haven't
been corrupted by years of the other way) prefer a temporal ordering, i.e. old
stuff at top, new stuff at bottom.
and keep my signature closer to the main body.
I'd rather keep each sentence of my reply as close as possible to the point
that it is replying to.
This also makes
(quote) and keep my signature closer to
the main body. This also makes an email easier to read if the quote is
long. If mutt does not have this function, it is perfectly fine. But
there is nothing wrong with M$ to provide it!
You ARE entitled to your ?OPINION?. Hope you have a flak jacket
* Bo Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] [09-04-02 18:22]:
It is natural (to me) to put important part (my reply) before non-important
part (quote)
If the quote isn't important, leave it out altogether. Notice how I didn't
quote all of the text of the original message? Notice how much easier to read
it
sent yesterday
would have cost the bandwidth of 1000 emails' quoted text.
I will write a vim function to insert my signature.
Bo
* Bo Peng ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [05 Sep 2002 11:40]:
[...]
I do not see anything wrong with quoting the whole message. It is a
good reference if the reader need to read it or it can be ignored
easily.
But I already have the previous messages. I can press P and read them. A
much better
be ignored easily. I
do not think bandwidth is an issue too. The picture I sent yesterday
would have cost the bandwidth of 1000 emails' quoted text.
I will write a vim function to insert my signature.
Fullquoting is extremely rude... especially on a discussion list, since
people looking through
201 - 300 of 687 matches
Mail list logo
