Re: [Evolution] Feature request: Signatures without '--'

["R. W. Reese" <aguador openmailbox org>]

El 2016-07-20 17:15, Adam Tauno Williams escribió:

> Because then *it is not a **signature** *.  It is
> just-text-in-the-message.  The phrase "signature" means: text at the
> *end* of a message, after the message.
>
> Perhaps what the author really wants are Message Templates?
I hesitate to lengthen this discussion as I think that Pete's repsonse 
presents the why's and wherefore's of the characters. I have always 
liked the format because, except with lists :), I sign virtually all my 
mails and leave the "signature" (text) below as it should be. Without 
knowing the reason, I just learned this when I started using the 
technology. Perhaps my next observation is also why I have accepted the 
convention.

When I sign an e-mail I do so with respect to my relationship with the 
receiver(s): an initial or initials (as Pete signed his message in this 
thread), a first name (as John did), or a full name (to politicians, 
complaints departments, perspective clients or whatever). From what I 
have seen some people want the "signature" to do double duty, both 
signing the message and giving full contact information (the e-mail 
equivalent of an inside address on a letter).

Pete's explanation of the technical reason and standard for "-- " 
settles (or should do so) the question. However, I think there are 
equally valid non-technical reasons for not changing this behavior.