ksh@itd.dsto.oz (Ken Hayman) (05/27/89)
While I can see what the change is aimed at doing, I feel that the
change of behaviour in the signature processing (done in Patch #8)
involves a loss of functionality. In particular, I no longer have the choice
to alter (or even delete) the signature on a particular message while I'm
editing it, since it's now not added till after you've elected to send it.
What do other people feel about this? Dare I suggest yet another elmrc
option?
Ken Hayman
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ken Hayman, TCS Group, DSTO Salisbury, S.Aust ACSnet: ksh@itd.dsto.oz |
| Phone: +61 8 259 6340 Internet: ksh@itd.dsto.oz.au |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+frank@ladc.bull.com (Frank Mayhar) (06/03/89)
In article <394@fang.dsto.oz> ksh@itd.dsto.oz (Ken Hayman) writes: > While I can see what the change is aimed at doing, I feel that the >change of behaviour in the signature processing (done in Patch #8) >involves a loss of functionality. In particular, I no longer have the choice >to alter (or even delete) the signature on a particular message while I'm >editing it, since it's now not added till after you've elected to send it. I've held off applying patch 8 for just this reason. I often change my signature depending on who I'm sending email to, and I'm not willing to give up this capability just to keep up with patch levels. I think the functionality should be configurable, so that the users that want the old behavior get it, and the users that like the new behavior get that. So a new elmrc option is the way to go. I would like to install patch 8 eventually, so I don't get left behind, but I don't plan to until this gets resolved. My $2.95 worth. -- Frank Mayhar ..!uunet!ladcgw!frank (frank@ladc.bull.com) Bull HN Los Angeles Development Center 5250 W. Century Blvd., LA, CA 90045 Phone: (213) 216-6241
tmoore@ciss.Dayton.NCR.COM (Tom.Moore@ciss.Dayton.NCR.COM) (06/05/89)
In article <428@ladcgw.ladc.bull.com> frank@ladc.bull.com (Frank Mayhar) writes: >I think the functionality should be configurable, so that the users that want >the old behavior get it, and the users that like the new behavior get that. >So a new elmrc option is the way to go. I would like to install patch 8 >eventually, so I don't get left behind, but I don't plan to until this >gets resolved. > >My $2.95 worth. I totally agree. While I like all that Elm does for me, I don't like losing control over my signature. There are too many cases where I wish to modify, add, or delete it and it is doubtful that Elm will get them all right. Besides, what is right for me is probably not right for anybody else. The most appropriate solution would then seem to be to provide the new elmrc option. One way you get the signature in the edit buffer as before. The other way you get it appended before transmission. My $0.05 worth (Even with inflation I can't justify $2.95). -- * Tom Moore NCR Corporation PCD-6 (513) 445-1373 * * Consulting Analyst 1700 S. Patterson Blvd. VOICEplus 622-1373 * * Network Applications Dayton, OH 45479 Tom.Moore@Dayton.NCR.COM *