From: J.B. Moreno (planb@newsreaders.com)
Date: Thu Dec 28 2000 - 15:26:19 CST
On 12/28/00 2:55 PM, Russ Allbery at <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:
> J B Moreno <planb@newsreaders.com> writes:
>
>> If the reader (person) sees it and wants to address it, then some extra
>> steps (or at least different steps) have to be taken to make that
>> possible, but that is no different than asking what the zip code is or
>> who was the famous person that you are quoting in your sig was -- if the
>> user wants to comment upon the sig then he can do so, just as he can
>> comment upon your Organization header or anything else he wants to. But
>> in neither case should it be automatically included as part of the
>> quoted text.
>
> I'll pipe up on this one and say that I think this has no business
> whatsoever in this standard. This is a GNKSA thing.
I disagree -- I think of the message as consisting of 3 parts: header, body,
and an optional footer aka the sig. This isn't how it is transmitted or
received over NNTP of course, but this is how I, as a reader, deal with the
articles and I think it's a useful way of doing so. If you look at it this
way, then it is obvious that the sig shouldn't be quoted.
> An informational RFC like one of the netiquette RFCs or the
> GNKSA, sure.
Section 4.3.2 is (mainly, with the possible exception of the description of
the sigdash itself, which I'd like to see moved to section 4.3.1) an
"informational" on how to prepare a followup, and I see not including the
sig as part of the necessary info (not as important as including an
attribution, or correctly quoting using ">", but necessary).
The final destination of all non-control messages is a person: and unless
the current poster is commenting upon it, the sig of the previous poster is
superfluous.
-- John Moreno