Re: [TCLUG:11699] Messages As Attachments [was Re: [TCLUG:11633]Ipaddress timouts]

[Troy Johnson <john1536@tc.umn.edu>]

Now, now, now! Let's be nice!

> Do you think that anybody is archiving it?

I was under the impression that this list is archived.

> I have been aware of PGP signing for years.  I personally find it a hassle

Hey now! Everybody != you. I don't sign my emails, but if I did, I would
want to sign _all_ emails. If I don't make a habit of things like this,
I usually end up not doing them at all (and so my current signature
behavior is explained).

> No, it is not like that at all.  You could sign your message in the
> traditional way and there would not be a problem with ANY mail program.
> But you don't - which I for one, find annoying.

Both sides of this argument are a little annoying. Both seem to be
saying "Change the way you do things, my way is the right way," which
isn't going to wash without some diplomatic discussion (Hint: I'd like
to see some). 

> I use Outlook Express 5.0 when in Windows.  I think that is new enough,

I find this statement a bit distasteful. If OE5 handles multiparts
attachments in an annoying way, email Microsoft, don't try to convince
others to do things OE5's way (from Standard Subversion 101). On the
other hand, if Mutt signs things in a non-standard way, it needs to be
fixed and the developers of Mutt should be notified (it should at least
be an option). We should work together to make sure communication is
smooth and easy, and most of that is making sure the tools we use
conform to specifications (or standards).

Sorry, that was more than $0.02.

Troy