** 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/>