On Fri 31 Jul 2020 at 12:07:14 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote: > On 2020-07-31 at 11:29, David Wright wrote: > > On Fri 31 Jul 2020 at 16:07:29 (+0100), Brad Rogers wrote: > > >> The Wanderer couched his response to that far more politely than I would > >> have done. > > > > That might be because The Wanderer was responding to some information > > in Reco's post. It was much more informative than "It doesn't work." > > I think that he might have been referring to another of my replies - > most likely either the one timestamped 07:24 EST, or the one timestamped > 07:17 EST, both from today. > > The "that" he was referring to, from context, appears to be Tomas' reply > which boiled down to "no, I won't stop doing this", and to which my > 07:17 mail was a reply.
You're probably right. But by then I'd read other responses, and "It doesn't work" was the shortest, and as uninformative as any. On Fri 31 Jul 2020 at 12:03:56 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote: > On 2020-07-31 at 11:30, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > >> I can read everything fine. Nothing gets trashed, but things that > >> one expects to happen (non quoting of text after a valid sig > >> separator) because Tomas has DELIBERATELY, broken his, don't > >> occur. > > > > I don't see any text following his `-- t`. What text do you see after > > `-- t` that you think should be hidden? > > In a properly compliant situation, the '-- t' itself would be omitted > when replying to the message, because it is (part or all of) the > signature block and not actually anything that will need to be > responded to. > > To be honest, I rather suspect you already understood that. I was perplexed by two things. The first was that anyone would think -- t was a sig-sep, because a sig-sep is "Hyphen Hyphen Space Newline", and the second was that I couldn't think of any particularly bad effects that the -- t would cause. After all, if it's *not* recognised as a sig-sep, then -- t becomes merely the last line of the message (wasn't that its intention?), and if it *is* misinterpreted as a sig-sep, then anything after it gets treated as a signature. Is that terrible? IDK. We're just told it's "broken", "doesn't work", and "fails completely", rather than being informed of which client produces what symptoms. Cheers, David.
