From: Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)
Date: Fri Dec 29 2000 - 02:58:44 CST
J B Moreno <planb@newsreaders.com> writes:
> On 12/28/00 8:28 PM, Russ Allbery at <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> I have no problem with stating the meaning of the sigdash within the
>> protocol.
> Are you referring to what the sigdash means or what it consists of?
What it means.
>> I just think we should stop there, rather than go on to draw
>> conclusions about the implications of this for the user interface of a
>> followup agent, in large part because I think the latter discussion is
>> out of scope for a protocol standard.
> I'm fairly sure that you aren't agreeing with me here, but...without
> taking prior comments into consideration, this seems to mean that we
> should say what it is (syntax) and what it means (protocol) without
> saying that it should be honored.
No, I'm saying that if we include the sig dash in the standard, we should
say that the sig dash separates the body of the message from the
signature, and that if a posting agent appends a signature it SHOULD
separate it from the body using a sig dash. That's honoring the sig dash.
There is nothing inherent in the concept of a signature that says it
shouldn't be quoted, and there are no interoperability problems caused by
quoting the signature, so I don't think we should say anything at all
about quoting behavior.
I don't see how honoring a sig dash implies that signatures shouldn't be
quoted.
-- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>