Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ncrlnk!ciss!tmoore
From: tmoore@ciss.Dayton.NCR.COM (Tom.Moore@ciss.Dayton.NCR.COM)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: PL8 signature "fix"
Message-ID: <670@ciss.Dayton.NCR.COM>
Date: 5 Jun 89 13:00:53 GMT
References: <394@fang.dsto.oz> <428@ladcgw.ladc.bull.com>
Reply-To: tmoore@ciss.Dayton.NCR.COM (Tom Moore)
Organization: NCR Corp. Network Application Services
Lines: 26

In article <428@ladcgw.ladc.bull.com> frank@ladc.bull.com (Frank Mayhar) writes:

>I think the functionality should be configurable, so that the users that want
>the old behavior get it, and the users that like the new behavior get that.
>So a new elmrc option is the way to go.  I would like to install patch 8
>eventually, so I don't get left behind, but I don't plan to until this
>gets resolved.
>
>My $2.95 worth.

I totally agree.  While I like all that Elm does for me, I don't like 
losing control over my signature.  There are too many cases where I wish
to modify, add, or delete it and it is doubtful that Elm will get them
all right.  Besides, what is right for me is probably not right for 
anybody else.  

The most appropriate solution would then seem to be to provide the new elmrc
option.  One way you get the signature in the edit buffer as before.  The 
other way you get it appended before transmission.

My $0.05 worth (Even with inflation I can't justify $2.95).

-- 
* Tom Moore                NCR Corporation  PCD-6              (513) 445-1373 *
* Consulting Analyst       1700 S. Patterson Blvd.         VOICEplus 622-1373 *
* Network Applications     Dayton, OH 45479          Tom.Moore@Dayton.NCR.COM *