begin ben quotation: > > how about a stipulation that attachments also be plain text only? does that > negatively encroach on pgp signatures in any way?
Depends on how you define "plain text". After all: aslf;kjasdr;lfkjasf;lkjasf;kljasfl;kjasdflk;asjflak;sdjfasdfkl;j is plain text. ms-tnef Word documents that are unreadable garbage on any platform except Windows are "plain text". UUencoded documents are plain text. That's why the definition either has to be complicated, or broad. It cannot be both simple and specific, because any simple definition that excludes ms-tnef message bodies also excludes config files. Personally, I prefer broad definitions to "all-inclusive" ones, backed up by a combination of gentle reminders from a moderator and flames from the denizens of the list. -- Shawn McMahon | Information may want to be free, but fiber http://www.eiv.com | optic cable wants to be one million US AIM: spmcmahonfedex, smcmahoneiv | dollars per mile.
pgp897GYNHVfe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
