On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > At 13:32 10/12/2003, you wrote: > >On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Rik Thomas wrote: > > > > > Since we are being pedantic... > > > > > > And it is also considered bad form to digitally sign a post to a mailing > > > list. Please refrain from doing so, all attachments to mailing lists > > > for that matter are bad form. > > > >When did that happen? > > > >Digital signatures are important. > > I think (hope) that Rik Thomas's point was that "ATTACHMENTS to mailing > lists" are bad form and that he did not express himself clearly. > > I wish everyone signed their messages, but inline and without attachments. > I wish I had already taken the time to figure out how to sign mine, but > inline and without attachments. Digital signatures ARE important, and > attachments ARE annoying. > > Just my two cents.
No no I meant what I said. Thanks for the kind words. But signatures, whether attached or inline are useless and unwanted on 90% of the professional mailing lists I am on. No where did I say digital signatures weren't important. They are a vital tool in personal communication, not on a group mailing lists. I said they were not appreciated on mailing lists. In fact, I believe rfc1855 mentions something about it. One of those "netiquette" rfcs. I am backing off as this is completely off topic. -- Rik Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] ValuableHost.com ValuableNames.net ICQ 879956 -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
