-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [actually, I'm replying to John's post next in this thread, but needed to show it from this point] Shown below are the first & last few lines of Mitch's message as it appears to me when I use Kmail's "reply-to-list" function: On Thursday 20 March 2003 7:47 pm, Mitch Thompson wrote:
On Thursday 20 March 2003 13:19, Tom Emerson wrote:
note: some may consider this a shade "off-topic", so if it degenerates [snip]
Mitch Thompson, San Antonio TX // WB5UZG Red Hat Certified Engineer (RHCE) http://home.satx.rr.com/mlthompson Independent Amsoil Dealer http://amsdealer.webhop.biz GPG: BBDA 3A2A 4483 BD0D 7CED B8A9 D183 C8F6 B0AF 66AE wget -O - http://home.satx.rr.com/mlthompson/pubkey.gpg | gpg --import
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't."
I don't claim to know everything that is going on, and I certainly expect this to be what I called a "closed system" in a private message -- both Mitch and I are using kmail, so *perhaps* kmail does some things that aren't 100% standard, but "to me" I see that: * I don't see the "---BEGIN PGP MESSAGE---" type headers & footers as text, but rather kmail uses these to color-code the message [and in this case it is yellow, indicating that while the signature is valid for the message contained within, I've never directly or indirectly verified his key] * the "reply" action strips these from the reply itself * replying FURTHER strips the final-most "signature" applied by the list software [I once had someone send a message that began with the signature indicator -- many clients pre-load the signature block when you start a new message, so he must have just started typing at the end of that -- in any case, my "reply" to him quoted nothing; instant "TOFU" stopper... ;) ] So, as I said, I think this is a "closed" system in that Kmail understands fully how a kmail-composed message is organized, so it doesn't show anything as "wrong". I see from John's headers he is using "messenger-pro/2.61", edited by Zap/ZapEmail, so there is some "difference of opinion" between these two programs [and I would expect my message to appear to have the same problem(s) from John's point of view] This is worse than browser compatability, and I'm afraid human nature is such that everyone will claim that their client is "absolutely correct" and haughtily sneer at any other e-mail client "that doesn't work right" and claim it "must" be the other client that is "wrong" [in fact, you might almost think that is my attitude, but trust me, it isn't] I *have* seen messages appearing on the kmail developer/bug e-mail list about "incompatabilities" between clients, along with samples of messages "as seen by" these other clients in an attempt to figure out where things broke down. [see bug #55450 -- a sylpheed user noted a problem w/detached signatures; turns out an extra cr/lf pair was needed that wasn't immediately obvious] Unfortunately this requires cooperation of people who aren't using kmail to tell the developers of kmail where things aren't correct -- not always an easy task :( Tom -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://osnut.homelinux.net/TomEmerson.asc iD8DBQE+evF3V/YHUqq2SwsRAt4aAJ93GIBSZR6jgvCkOfm3ZFR4DepSagCfS0xx drQFSvPAzdO2sc/uadiMEO4= =rx/S -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----