** Sometime around 11:53 -0500 02/21/99, John Bachman said:

>Who needs a law?  How about a listowner option?  Delete everything
>following ----.  Seems simple to me, you do it or not - your choice.  After
>all, it is not like listowners don't decide any other parameters.  I would
>do it in a minute on my lists.
>
>
>
>At 04:17 PM 2/21/99 +0100, you wrote:
>>Message from Michael S. Johnson [06:34 99-02-21 ]:
>>
>>
>>>Relating this by analogy to law: a recent news report exposed general
>>>ignorance of a 20-year old law that requires motorists in Washington State
>>>to carry a trash receptacle.  Rhetorical question: Does that ignorance
>>>mean that the law should not be followed?
>>>
>>>Of course, no one has given evidence that there is a "law"/RFC about "--
>>>", so the analogy is imperfect.  Suggestion: why not propose it as a *new*
>>>RFC?
>>
>>Yes, the analogy was not perfect because we do not have any
>>law or even a recommendation concerning signatures.
>>
>>The idea of standardization of sigs is a good one.

Hey, if we're going to take the time to standardize .sigs, can we also
standardize the placement of replies in messages to mailing lists?

;-)

__________________________________________________________________________
Vince Sabio            Boy & His Sabre: <http://www.insane.net/tsc/Vince/>
[log in to unmask]            Stop Internet Spam! <http://www.cauce.org/>