Re: [Evolution] Signature Files and HTML by default

On 17 May 2001 15:55:51 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
I just don't think evolution should manage anyones signatures. If it
ends up becoming a "must-have" feature, then I'd wager it'd be a super
low priority item.

Hear, hear! There are enough sig-manglers in the world. Evo does okay by
letting you pick what your sig file should be and then getting on with
business. (Back in the day, it used to grab one "iteration" of my
randomized sig and stick with that one through the whole session... but
that was way back when.)

While I'm talking about the steady improvements in Evo, I'm still
running CVS.2001. here. It usually only dies when I make the
mistake of mucking about with Exec-Summary or when some clever nut sends
a "this message crashes Evo" message and I don't switch to "View Source"
appropriately. Should I take the (arguably healthy and sane) stance of
"if it ain't broken, don't update it" or are the new snaps finally worth
it? I've read an awful lot of "ack, I upgraded and now X happens" which
is why I haven't touched a snapshot in almost a month. I'm loathe to
ruin a perfectly good mailer, but I'm also not really contributing to
the cause by sticking with an "ancient" version...

As for HTML-ized sigs... well, I'm sure someone will come up with a
mangler for those, too. Heck, now that I think about it I betcha I could
convince gensig to "insert" the randomized part into an HTML-ized sig.
Which isn't the same as asserting that HTML-ized sigs aren't pure evil,
of course. I'm not going to start THAT debate, since that would be like
kicking off yet another KDE/GNOME, Win/Lin/Mac, E/WM/TWM (yes I'm being
absurd) or other kind of silly ongoing battle.

  Karel P Kerezman - IS Admin, Entercom Portland LLC -
  Two degrees off square.
  From the Canonical Fulldeckisms List:

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]