Re: "Ought"

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com)
Date: Thu Jan 04 2001 - 12:43:59 CST


> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:03:02 +0000
> From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net>

> > >> Followup agents, when incorporating quoted text from a precursor,
> > >> SHOULD NOT include the signature in the quotation.
>
> > >> [X13. SHOULD NOT -> Ought Not???
>
> >> X13 is no interoperability, so it must be Ought Not.
> >
> > Hmmm! More opinions? I left it as a SHOULD NOT because, although it is an
> > act of the user's agent, and an overridable one at that, it does produce
> > effects which are externally visible, and therefore of concern to people
> > other than that user.
>
> I do feel that a signature is a separate part of the message, so this
> should be a SHOULD NOT. However, I wouldn't die in the ditch for it.

  I've been lurking recently, but I agree that this SHOULD be the case,
since including the sig is a user visible change. Um, at one time there
was a reader which identified a sig with a /-- $/ regex, so even quoted
sigs were treated as beginning of sig. Add the option to only display
five lines of sig... SHOULD!

-- 
bill davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com)
  Prodigy Internet Server Group
  Project Leader, USENET news
  914-448-1241


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29.