Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!MIX!Blackbird From: billy@MIX.COM Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Upcoming New Newsreader for the Mac: Signal Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:06:19 +0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Lines: 66 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.panix.com X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1403049979 10127 166.84.1.5 (18 Jun 2014 00:06:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:06:19 +0000 (UTC) Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.apps:23038 comp.sys.mac.system:61057 dorayme wrote, quoting me, on my signing my news articles: > > In the 20+ years I've been doing it, you're the first person to > > complain. I won't suggest you get an easier to use text editor > > What has an *easier to use* text editor got to do with it? You'd then exert minimal effort to be rid of text you don't wish to include. > Maybe I have the wrong idea, I don't know, but properly delimited sigs > are good for signing off (as well as giving any useful information > about contacts, funnies, cleveries, whatever). Mine will probably only be understood by those skilled in assembly language programming. > I rarely can get anyone to see or at least seem to see and acknowledge > at least (you being no exception) that there is no point in not > putting your sign off - "Regards Billy" or whatever - also under the > dashes so that it automatically disappears when a reply is made in a > good newsreader. It almost never needs to be in a reply for reasons I > have outlined previously. So? Neither does a lot of other stuff in a typical followup article. > Are you understanding that it *can* be in the reply if the replier > chooses to include it. Sure. Some people trim nothing at all. And, even those who trim well can include it if they'd prefer. It will be identified (prefixed) by the characters used as quote-marks as having come from me. > It seems to me that this choice is unlikely and so the default should > be that the replier can choose to select your sig and include it if he > or she wants, rather than having to go to the least trouble to opt out. It seems to me the burden (if it even is..) falls on the person following up. > In case you don't know, in MT-NW a replier can choose your sig block > to appear by simply selecting the whole post that is being replied to > before hitting the reply button. The selection can be tailored up to a > point with little trouble, but hitting reply is always the simplest > way and then one trims to suit the circumstances, and not having pesky > unnecessary things at the bottom is one less thing to be rid of. > > I know, this is completely baffling to you! No, not at all. No need to ask God for help, no need to bother your horse, I thoroughly understand what you've said. I just don't see it as a problem that's my responsiblity to solve. You're already whacking included text - what's a couple more keystrokes once in a while...? By the way, what if I complained about the space wasting trailing blanks (spaces) at the ends of your lines of text? They needlessly consume disk storage space (if they cause another block to be eaten, anyway), and network bandwidth during transmission. Well, I won't complain, because, quite honestly, it's just as trivial. Billy Y.. -- sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer bcc 20$ ; not a number