don@grc.UUCP (Donald D. Woelz) (05/26/89)
First, I want to join the ranks of those who have praised the ELM
development effort. We use ELM corporate wide as our main mail
user agent and are very pleased with it.
I have just applied patches 1 thru 8 and recompiled ELM. I noticed
a change in the operation of ELM almost immediately. I no longer
see my .signature lines in the message I am editing. They appear
to now be appended when I actually send the message.
I consider this to be a major return to the dark ages. I sometimes
edit my signature for various reasons. I can no longer do that
on a mesage by message basis. Is there some new configuration
parameter or elmrc parameter that will get this to behave in the
same way that it has in the past? Why was this changed in the first
place?
--
Don Woelz {ames, rutgers, harvard}!uwvax!uwmcsd4!grc!don
GENROCO, Inc. Phone: 414-644-8700
205 Kettle Moraine Drive North Fax: 414-644-6667
Slinger, WI 53086 Telex: 6717062 or 158279420zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) (05/26/89)
In article <204@grc.UUCP> don@grc.UUCP (Donald D. Woelz) writes: About .signature file change. >I consider this to be a major return to the dark ages. I sometimes >edit my signature for various reasons. I can no longer do that >on a mesage by message basis. Sure you can. Just go into the editor and read in your signature manually if you want to change it. The change was necessary for three reasons 1) a local vs remote signature would often cause the side effect of making elm use a different editor. It's hard to explain to a user why elm acts very differently just because mail is sent offsite and 2) you *can't* determine what signature to use until the message is complete and 3) other programs (rn, etc) work that way. You were depending on a side effect of a bug in elm. Is there some new configuration >parameter or elmrc parameter that will get this to behave in the >same way that it has in the past? Perhaps you could figure out a solution to #2 above and then add one. -- Jon Zeeff zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us Ann Arbor, MI sharkey!b-tech!zeeff
harlan@hardy.NBI.COM (Harlan Olson) (05/26/89)
In article <204@grc.UUCP>, don@grc.UUCP (Donald D. Woelz) writes: > a change in the operation of ELM almost immediately. I no longer > see my .signature lines in the message I am editing. They appear > to now be appended when I actually send the message. > > I consider this to be a major return to the dark ages. I sometimes > edit my signature for various reasons. I can no longer do that > on a mesage by message basis. Is there some new configuration > parameter or elmrc parameter that will get this to behave in the > same way that it has in the past? Why was this changed in the first > place? I too am pleased with ELM2.2 the efforts of the development group. I share Don's concerns mentioned above. -- Customer Support Training | 2995 Wilderness Pl. 303/443-9892 x2208 | Boulder, CO 80301 harlan@hardy.NBI.COM (Smail) {alegra,ucbvax,ncar,isieng}!nbires!hardy!harlan (USENET)
phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) (05/27/89)
In article <9388@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us> zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) writes: >In article <204@grc.UUCP> don@grc.UUCP (Donald D. Woelz) writes: > >........ 2) you *can't* determine what signature to use until the message >is complete . . . >Perhaps you could figure out a solution to #2 above and then add one. How about treating the file to be included as the signature to be like a header field, i.e. the file name could be displayed/changed on the header menu. If you did not like elm's choice you could change it (this would allow you to have special purpose signatures based on other criteria than remote/local). If you did not want to use one of the "standard" signitures, then you could change it for the outgoing note so that there would be no automatically included signature, but you could return to the editing of the outgoing note and explcitly include the necessary signature file (with whatever changes you deem appropriate :-) -phil -- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* J. Philip Miller - Div of Biostat - Washington Univ Medical School phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet phil@wubios.wustl - bitnet (314) 362-3617 c90562jm@wuvmd - alternate bitnet
jgd@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (John G Dobnick,EMS E380,4142295727,) (05/27/89)
In article <204@grc.UUCP>, don@grc.UUCP (Donald D. Woelz) says: > > I have just applied patches 1 thru 8 and recompiled ELM. I noticed > a change in the operation of ELM almost immediately. I no longer > see my .signature lines in the message I am editing. They appear > to now be appended when I actually send the message. > > I consider this to be a major return to the dark ages. I sometimes > edit my signature for various reasons. I can no longer do that > on a mesage by message basis. Is there some new configuration > parameter or elmrc parameter that will get this to behave in the > same way that it has in the past? Why was this changed in the first > place? I was just about to post a "low grade simmer" (or a mini-flame), but Don phrased it much more succinctly than I was about to. (Which is why I included most of his message up there -- and it was fairly short to boot.) I also think this change in Elm behavior is a serious mistake. I too have valid reasons to edit my .signature file on a message by message basis, and thus have to cope with more than the two allowable signature file formats (by Elm's way of thinking, at least -- local and/or remote). Life (and e-mail) is more complex than that. Please reconsider this situation, or at the very least add a (yet another) configuration tag to the emlrc file to restore Elm's previous behavior. Thank you. -- John G Dobnick, local Elm guinea pig and promoter of Elm. Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee INTERNET: jgd@csd4.milw.wisc.edu UUCP: <backbone>!uwvax!uwmcsd1!jgd "Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation, and is thus a source of civilized delight." -- William Safire
leif@lkbpyr.UUCP (leif ljung) (05/29/89)
Why not include the selected signature in the Message Header Edit Screen. Hopefully by that time you have decided who to send your mail to and thereby selected the appropriate signature file...and you may even edit the signature here. If you don't want to bother about the signature there is no need to do anything and Elm will select the right one for you. You don't have the Header lines in your mail and seem to get along without those. Of course one should also control this with .elmrc and as a com-line option and... :-) --leif ------ leif@phlux.lkb.se uunet!mcvax!sunic!lkbpyr!leif
ccdn@levels.sait.edu.au (DAVID NEWALL) (05/30/89)
In article <9388@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us>, zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) writes: > In article <204@grc.UUCP> don@grc.UUCP (Donald D. Woelz) writes: > > About .signature file change. > >>I consider this to be a major return to the dark ages. I sometimes >>edit my signature for various reasons. I can no longer do that >>on a mesage by message basis. > > Sure you can. Just go into the editor and read in your signature > manually if you want to change it. Oh Please! That's hardly a reasonable solution, is it? > The change was necessary for three reasons ... and 2) you *can't* > determine what signature to use until the message is complete Sometimes it's very easy to loose track of one's objectives. I think this is an example of where the development group (who by and large have done, and are still doing, a fine job) have let the ends run away with them. Certainly it's nice to have different local and remote signatures. But I don't consider it a crime if elm occasionally chooses the wrong one. Especially since elm does, or at least it used to, include the signature in the edit buffer. At least I knew what I was getting. And I could change it if it was wrong. Now I have to hope that elm is going to get it right. And to be honest, I don't have that much faith in a computer. I'd like to be sure of what I'm getting. From the large volume of postings on this subject, I'd say that a lot of elm users prefer the signature to be loaded into the edit buffer. I count myself among them. So, please, elm developers, give us back our signatures. (Remember: user convenience is more important than strict program correctness). David Newall Phone: +61 8 343 3160 Unix Systems Programmer Fax: +61 8 349 6939 Academic Computing Service E-mail: ccdn@levels.sait.oz.au SA Institute of Technology Post: The Levels, South Australia, 5095
indra@hobbes.amd.com (Indra Singhal) (06/02/89)
In article <204@grc.UUCP> don@grc.UUCP (Donald D. Woelz) writes: >I no longer >see my .signature lines in the message I am editing. They appear >to now be appended when I actually send the message. >I consider this to be a major return to the dark ages. I sometimes >edit my signature for various reasons. I can no longer do that >on a mesage by message basis. I have exactly the same sentiments. Further, the signature does not appear in the copy of the message saved, while this is good to save space, however, I can never tell which signature was sent with which message. (Oh Sure, I should figure it out from the To: and CC: lines in the saved message...) Whatever, an option to edit the signature MUST be provided. If it is attempted to provide a solution to all signature requirements... you'll never make it. I had a map in my .exrc for vi that replaced my remote signature with my local signature at PL7 for messages going to different machines within our company. I didn't mind hitting 1 key to do that !! >-- >Don Woelz {ames, rutgers, harvard}!uwvax!uwmcsd4!grc!don iNDRA | indra@amdcad.AMD.COM (408) 749-5445 | {ames decwrl gatech pyramid sun uunet}!amdcad!indra | MS 167; Box 3453; Sunnyvale, CA 94088
indra@hobbes.amd.com (Indra Singhal) (06/02/89)
In article <9388@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us>, zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) writes: | In article <204@grc.UUCP> don@grc.UUCP (Donald D. Woelz) writes: | | About .signature file change. | |>I consider this to be a major return to the dark ages. I sometimes |>edit my signature for various reasons. I can no longer do that |>on a mesage by message basis. | | Sure you can. Just go into the editor and read in your signature | manually if you want to change it. Well, think about it... after you have edited your manually read signature, you mail the message and elm sticks the unedited signature to your mail !! You are left with 1-and-some-fraction of your signature !!! iNDRA | indra@amdcad.AMD.COM (408) 749-5445 | {ames decwrl gatech pyramid sun uunet}!amdcad!indra | MS 167; Box 3453; Sunnyvale, CA 94088
jeff@cjsa.WA.COM (Jeffery Small) (06/02/89)
In article <281@levels.sait.edu.au>, ccdn@levels.sait.edu.au (DAVID NEWALL) writes: > Certainly it's nice to have different local and remote signatures. But > I don't consider it a crime if elm occasionally chooses the wrong one. > Especially since elm does, or at least it used to, include the signature > in the edit buffer. At least I knew what I was getting. And I could > change it if it was wrong. Now I have to hope that elm is going to get > it right. And to be honest, I don't have that much faith in a computer. > I'd like to be sure of what I'm getting. > I agree with this completely. This change in the handling of signatures is the first modification that has been made which I don't feel I will be able to live with*. Elm frequently does not give me the signature I want for a particular individual (I have suggested linking the signature file to the aliases to solve this problem) and I often edit it as I compose my message. I too, want to see what elm is going to do. For this reason, I am hesitant to use the encode feature of elm because I have no easy way to verify that the sensitive material has actually been encoded prior to sending it. It seems to me that most of these problems concerning headers, signatures, encoded messages, etc. are created because we are trying to accommodate the simple-minded builtin+ editor - which is actually not an editor at all - and users of real editors (vi, emacs, wordprocessors) are suffering the consequences. We are spending a lot of energy talking about and resolving these incompatible message-creation strategies. I would like to throw out for comment the following idea: Why don't we junk the builtin+ "editor" and replace it with a small and very simple **buffered** editor which doesn't have a lot of bells and whistles, could emulate the Berkeley commands to a good extent and yet, could handle the inclusion of header/signature/etc material. Then, create elmrc options for each of the items in question which allow the user to either include the material in the editor buffer or defer tacking on the info until the message is sent. This provides a uniform method of dealing with the problem and would allow future enhancements to be more easily integrated into elm. For users who now use builtin+, if you specify the new builtin editor and defer inclusion of headers and signatures, then you could simulate exactly the environment that exists now. The rest of us could pick and choose the set of options we like. Doesn't code for a very simple editor exist in the public domain which could be used as a starting point for inclusion in elm? Comments? -- Jeffery Small (206) 485-5596 uw-beaver!uw-nsr!uw-warp C. Jeffery Small and Associates !cjsa!jeff 19112 152nd Ave NE - Woodinville, WA 98072 uunet!nwnexus *[BTW - Patch 8 hasn't made it to this site either.]
phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) (07/22/89)
In article <707@isaak.UUCP> woerz@isaak.UUCP (Dieter Woerz) writes: >In article <792@cjsa.WA.COM> jeff@cjsa.WA.COM (Jeffery Small) writes: >>... >>particular individual (I have suggested linking the signature file to the >>aliases to solve this problem) and I often edit it as I compose my message. > >I would second this proposal. Make an extra field in the alias entry, >which contains the name of the signature file to be used for this >person with the option of giving no signature at all for such things >as archive servers and things like that. Perhaps this can be a >feature for a future release of elm. It looks like we are continuing to suggest additions to the aliases.text file. In addition to the folder to store incoming and/or outgoing mail, we now have the suggestion of what signature to add. I suggest that we begin to talk about an entire database with a decent interface. One of the very nice things about mail on CMS was a NAMES file which not only gave the links between the nickname and the electronic address, it also allowed the specification of the folder (NOTEBOOK) to be used for the mail. In addition it had optional fields to list physical (snail) address, phone numbers and tags which could be used to search the database. This meant that there was a single file which contained all of my name/address information - a great simplification of life over my current unix life. Anyone have a design which could be used as the basis for such an animal? -phil -- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* J. Philip Miller - Div of Biostat - Washington Univ Medical School phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet phil@wubios.wustl - bitnet (314) 362-3617 c90562jm@wuvmd - alternate bitnet
woerz%isaak@isaak.uucp (Dieter Woerz) (07/23/89)
In article <792@cjsa.WA.COM> jeff@cjsa.WA.COM (Jeffery Small) writes: >... >I agree with this completely. This change in the handling of signatures is >the first modification that has been made which I don't feel I will be able >to live with*. Elm frequently does not give me the signature I want for a >particular individual (I have suggested linking the signature file to the >aliases to solve this problem) and I often edit it as I compose my message. I would second this proposal. Make an extra field in the alias entry, which contains the name of the signature file to be used for this person with the option of giving no signature at all for such things as archive servers and things like that. Perhaps this can be a feature for a future release of elm. > ... > [Proposal about enlarging the functionality of the builtin editor > deleted] > ... >Comments? My comments to the given proposal are these: I assume that most people don't use the builtin editor anyway. The use vi, emacs or an other more comfortable editor, so that they can edit the message with the editor they are used to. So my proposal is: Why not call the editor with (the message including?) the signature (but no the headers?) when the user has sent the message and elm has made its choice for the signature? Is this change easy enough to incorporate for being a patch to remedy this no-signature-feature? Comments? Dieter Woerz ISA GmbH, Azenbergstr. 35 D-7000 Stuttgart-1 W-Germany UUCP: {pyramid!iaoobel,uunet!unido}!isaak!woerz BITNET/EARN: woerz@ds0iff5