Re: [Evolution] Stripping .sig's in replies

[Jason Kohles <jkohles redhat com>]

On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 10:49, Dan Winship wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 10:38, Jason Kohles wrote:
> > On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 10:19, Dan Winship wrote:
> > > > 4.  When "nuke-a-sig" is run, start at the end of the message, and only
> > > > read back <n> (user configurable?) lines to get to the delimiter.
> > >
> > > There's no reason to make it user configurable. And I'd suggest "5" for
> > > n.
> > That's a good reason to make it configurable, I'd argue that the bigger
> > the sig, the more it needs stripping.
>
> Then that's a lousy reason to make it configurable. Having a
> configuration option means "we think some people only want to strip
> small signatures, but other people want to strip large signatures too,
> so you can decide".
Well, if you want to only strip sigs shorter than 5 lines, and I want to
strip sigs larger than that, then apparently "some people only want to
strip small signatures, but other people want to strip large signatures
too" is true.

> What you're arguing for is "it shouldn't be based on the number of
> lines, you just need to have a smarter algorithm"
No, I'm arguing that if it is going to be based on the number of lines,
then the number of lines should be configurable.

-- 
Jason Kohles                                 jkohles redhat com
Senior System Architect
Red Hat Professional Consulting              http://www.redhat.com/