Mutt/GnuPG doc initial release
Fri Sep 28 12:10:02 2001
On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 12:00:40AM +0200, Ingo Kl=F6cker wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 26. September 2001 15:38, Horacio wrote:
> > That=B4s your saying, and yet people who think and act like
> > you do slow down my reading of mail at mailing lists by
> > forcing the opening of a process for no useful reason.
> Maybe you shouldn't be using this MTA if it slows down your
> reading so much just because of signed messages.
Ok, while comparisons are not always fair, sometimes can be
used as a means to make someone understanding. Let=B4s try
this simple one:
A car horn is meant to be used for warning against and
accident. Yet, many people make an abusive use of it. I
hate that. But, does it mean that I should cover my ears to
avoid hearing it? Being able to hearing the horn when a car
is bumping into me is far more important.
I know that I=B4m left no choice but to put up with it, but at
least I have the right to complain about some people=B4s bad
mannered and uncivilized behaviour. Obviously, neither you
nor Owen will think it is uncivilized (ok, now I=B4m back to
signatures here), since you seem to enjoy it. Perhaps
uncivilized is a word fit for the example, but not for the
abuse of digital signatures... let=B4s just say bad mannered
> Alternatively you could write a procmail filter which
> removes signatures from messages send to mailing lists. As
> you are using mutt (at least that's what your X-Mailer
> header tells me) it's very likely that you are using
> procmail already to convert inlined signatures to PGP/MIME
> signatures. So why not simply remove signatures from
> mailing list messages.
No, just because it would strip the useless signatures as
well as the useful ones.
> > Of course you don=B4t find it an annoyance! You are the
> > one who annoys others with it!
> You shouldn't generalise your opinion to others. Owen
> doesn't annoy me. But of course I'm guilty of the same
> crime. :-)
I=B4m not, in fact I presume there are people who are annoyed
with it and others who are not (e.g. all of you who, imo,
(ab)?use it). I didn=B4t use "others" to mean "everyone". As
with everything else in life, there is enough people to stand
in one side and the opposite.