Alessandro Vesely writes:
> Camera-ready is cleaner than anything I have heard till now.
Clean, maybe, but Mark explained why the scheme is fragile even if you
can get participation. The killer problem is personalization, but the
other problems are also intractable. Serial numbers in the
On 11/06/2016 09:58 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
> Camera-ready is cleaner than anything I have heard till now.
> Probably it is not workable, but I cannot understand why. It works well
> in several publishing environments, typically journals, which distribute
> templates to authors. Why
On Sun 06/Nov/2016 09:17:53 +0100 Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Alessandro Vesely writes:
The idea is to add a footer only in case it is not present,
Aside from the technical difficulties that Mark describes, this
suffers from a really big defect: for this to be actually useful,
you'd need
On Sat 05/Nov/2016 19:51:13 +0100 Mark Sapiro wrote:
On 11/05/2016 04:11 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
The idea is to add a footer only in case it is not present, similar to
what is done with subject_prefix. By properly setting both of them, a
sender can submit what can be called a
Alessandro Vesely writes:
> The idea is to add a footer only in case it is not present,
Aside from the technical difficulties that Mark describes, this
suffers from a really big defect: for this to be actually useful,
you'd need near-100% participation (Authenticated Received Chain has
the same
On 11/05/2016 04:11 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
> The idea is to add a footer only in case it is not present, similar to
> what is done with subject_prefix. By properly setting both of them, a
> sender can submit what can be called a camera-ready post. Since no
> change applies, no DKIM
Dear all,
I'd like to probe the feasibility of this option.
The idea is to add a footer only in case it is not present, similar to what is
done with subject_prefix. By properly setting both of them, a sender can
submit what can be called a camera-ready post. Since no change applies, no
DKIM
