Ashant wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Lairo) wrote:
>
>
>>I *disagree* that having sigs *always* at the bottom is better.
>>
>>Most business communications *require* that the original text be quoted,
>>no matter how long it is (I've had communications where a mail went back
>>and forth about 20 times and the quoted part was enormous - fortunately,
>>the signatures where all below their respective texts, so the document
>>remained legible).
>>
>
> Hmmm ... given the large number of people work in offices and require
> a lot of official correspondence, it would be interesting to see a
> large number of requests for this feature. Hey don't take this as a
> criticism, I am only trying to see from your point of view ...
>
> Ashant.
>
This has been discussed before. As I recall, putting sigs on top causes
problems with software that considers everything below the sig as part
of the sig (chopping it off on some mailing lists, for example).
That said, top-posting is evil, regardless of how sigs are handled.
--
http://www.classic-games.com/ http://www.indie-games.com/
I've often thought intelligence agencies should recruit idiots, as
idiots seem able to infiltrate any group in large numbers.
