Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!crackers!m2c!risky.ecs.umass.edu!dime!legato!pedregal
From: pedregal@legato.cs.umass.edu (Cris Pedregal-Martin)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: elm and .signature files
Message-ID: <30455@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 13 May 91 14:34:34 GMT
References: <1991May10.162551.2250@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <1991May10.185112.28744@DSI.COM>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Reply-To: pedregal@cs.umass.edu
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Lines: 31

In article <1991May10.185112.28744@DSI.COM>, syd@DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein) writes:
|> dnmiller@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David Neal Miller) writes:
[...]
|> >Unlike mm and rn/trn, elm adds the contents of one's
|> >.signature file to the editable message;
[...]

|> The reason Dave left the sig in the editable portion of the message
|> was to allow it to be edited also.  Now I must admit I rarely
|> edit my sig as part of the message.  But that was his intention.

I, for one, edit my signature often (e.g. to remove some part, or to
expand my e-address when writing to an e-mail-illiterate :-) person).
On the other hand, I always leave _some_ signature, so I don't see a
need for a question asking me whether to include it.


|> 
|> Is it poor design?  Thats subjective.  It was what he intended and
|> he had his reason.  Do we intend to change it.... Not presently,
|> there are many more important things missing from 2.4 before that one.

My vote is leave is at is. 

--Cris

[using the newsreader mailer and hence a lean signature :-)]

-- 
                   Cristobal Pedregal Martin
COINS Dept. - UMass -  Amherst, MA 01003   --  pedregal@cs.umass.edu