Re: Signature not working
On Fri 31 Jul 2020 at 12:07:14 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2020-07-31 at 11:29, David Wright wrote:
> > On Fri 31 Jul 2020 at 16:07:29 (+0100), Brad Rogers wrote:
>
> >> The Wanderer couched his response to that far more politely than I would
> >> have done.
> >
> > That might be because The Wanderer was responding to some information
> > in Reco's post. It was much more informative than "It doesn't work."
>
> I think that he might have been referring to another of my replies -
> most likely either the one timestamped 07:24 EST, or the one timestamped
> 07:17 EST, both from today.
>
> The "that" he was referring to, from context, appears to be Tomas' reply
> which boiled down to "no, I won't stop doing this", and to which my
> 07:17 mail was a reply.
You're probably right. But by then I'd read other responses, and
"It doesn't work" was the shortest, and as uninformative as any.
On Fri 31 Jul 2020 at 12:03:56 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2020-07-31 at 11:30, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
> >> I can read everything fine. Nothing gets trashed, but things that
> >> one expects to happen (non quoting of text after a valid sig
> >> separator) because Tomas has DELIBERATELY, broken his, don't
> >> occur.
> >
> > I don't see any text following his `-- t`. What text do you see after
> > `-- t` that you think should be hidden?
>
> In a properly compliant situation, the '-- t' itself would be omitted
> when replying to the message, because it is (part or all of) the
> signature block and not actually anything that will need to be
> responded to.
>
> To be honest, I rather suspect you already understood that.
I was perplexed by two things. The first was that anyone would think
-- t was a sig-sep, because a sig-sep is "Hyphen Hyphen Space Newline",
and the second was that I couldn't think of any particularly bad
effects that the -- t would cause.
After all, if it's *not* recognised as a sig-sep, then -- t becomes
merely the last line of the message (wasn't that its intention?),
and if it *is* misinterpreted as a sig-sep, then anything after it
gets treated as a signature. Is that terrible? IDK. We're just told
it's "broken", "doesn't work", and "fails completely", rather than
being informed of which client produces what symptoms.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: