Re: Does TB have a jrefs.js file (Win7)?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
105 messages Options
123456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gone too far

Mike Easter-2
Daniel wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:

>> And, someone eventually has to clean up for them, and the sooner the
>> better.

> Until someone cleans up too much, then no-one has a clue whats going on,
> or they have to re-read the other stuff!

My philosophy about posting any message is not that I am charged with
the responsibility of creating a summary or regurgitation of everything
which has been said before in the thread.

My philosophy is that when I post a message I am saying something, and
the something which I am saying is based on or directed toward those few
words which I am citing untrimmed just above my words.

If someone wants to summarize some things which have been said before in
uncited material, then they can paraphrase or interpret that previous
uncited content. Such paraphrasing or recapitulating can work, but it
requires extra effort.

Every message contains the References line to refer to previous
messages. As a general rule, my messages don't often refer to very many
different layers of previous messages. There is no need for anyone's
message to contain some big accumulation of old content which isn't
being commented on in the present message content.


--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gone too far

Ron Hunter
On 10/16/2011 7:14 AM, Mike Easter wrote:

> Daniel wrote:
>> Mike Easter wrote:
>
>>> And, someone eventually has to clean up for them, and the sooner the
>>> better.
>
>> Until someone cleans up too much, then no-one has a clue whats going
>> on, or they have to re-read the other stuff!
>
> My philosophy about posting any message is not that I am charged with
> the responsibility of creating a summary or regurgitation of everything
> which has been said before in the thread.
>
> My philosophy is that when I post a message I am saying something, and
> the something which I am saying is based on or directed toward those few
> words which I am citing untrimmed just above my words.
>
> If someone wants to summarize some things which have been said before in
> uncited material, then they can paraphrase or interpret that previous
> uncited content. Such paraphrasing or recapitulating can work, but it
> requires extra effort.
>
> Every message contains the References line to refer to previous
> messages. As a general rule, my messages don't often refer to very many
> different layers of previous messages. There is no need for anyone's
> message to contain some big accumulation of old content which isn't
> being commented on in the present message content.
>
>
The trouble with that references line is that it hasn't worked for me
since Netscape 4.7 went into history.
I only retain 20 messages, and trying to use the reference line seems to
do nothing on TB for me.  Not sure if that is a configuration issue, or
if it just doesn't work on TB.  In any case, I haven't needed to do that
in some time, and then only rarely.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gone too far

goodwin-4
In reply to this post by Stanimir Stamenkov-3
On 10/16/2011 03:28 AM, Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:

> one should read what others have replied already,

there is at least one prominent poster here that regularly does /not/ do
this - it can be annoying.  I think it comes from working offline.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gone too far

Mike Easter-2
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:

>> Every message contains the References line to refer to previous
>> messages.

> The trouble with that references line is that it hasn't worked for me
> since Netscape 4.7 went into history.

I agree that Tbird has a severe 'references access' problem compared to
some other newsreaders. There was a message-id accessing add-on for very
early v./s of Tb that has long since been abandoned and doesn't work on
anything current.

If one wants to be able to access a great accumulated thread that goes
back a long way, there are two different strategies by which one may
accomplish that.

One strategy is to retain a lot of news messages with Tb or something else.

The strategy I prefer for the very very rare occasion that I want to
review an old thread history is to access and display it on googlegroups.

I also use OE to fetch specific m-id/s because it has the ability to do
that, and/or I use Howard Knight's m-id tool if I only want to see one
specific message rather than a thread like I view with googlegroups.

The GG strategy doesn't work for those groups which are not carried by
GG, as an example alt.os.linux.ubuntu.


--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gone too far

Ron Hunter
On 10/16/2011 8:50 AM, Mike Easter wrote:

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Mike Easter wrote:
>
>>> Every message contains the References line to refer to previous
>>> messages.
>
>> The trouble with that references line is that it hasn't worked for me
>> since Netscape 4.7 went into history.
>
> I agree that Tbird has a severe 'references access' problem compared to
> some other newsreaders. There was a message-id accessing add-on for very
> early v./s of Tb that has long since been abandoned and doesn't work on
> anything current.
>
> If one wants to be able to access a great accumulated thread that goes
> back a long way, there are two different strategies by which one may
> accomplish that.
>
> One strategy is to retain a lot of news messages with Tb or something else.
>
> The strategy I prefer for the very very rare occasion that I want to
> review an old thread history is to access and display it on googlegroups.
>
> I also use OE to fetch specific m-id/s because it has the ability to do
> that, and/or I use Howard Knight's m-id tool if I only want to see one
> specific message rather than a thread like I view with googlegroups.
>
> The GG strategy doesn't work for those groups which are not carried by
> GG, as an example alt.os.linux.ubuntu.
>
>
Well, I put googlegroups in the same category as malware sites.  I
visited it a few times and always went away angry at the mess I found
there.  I am not particularly fond of 'forums', or the way the work, and
googlegroups seemed to be worse than the rest.  I currently have all
messages from it blocked to decrease spam and trolls.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gone too far

Mike Easter-2
Ron Hunter wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:

>> I agree that Tbird has a severe 'references access' problem

>> The strategy I prefer for the very very rare occasion that I want to
>> review an old thread history is to access and display it on googlegroups.

> Well, I put googlegroups in the same category as malware sites.

Malware sites?  Normal sites are just as likely to be malware sites as
'naughty' sites. The idea that someone can surf around recklessly and
insecurely configured just because they avoid 'dangerous' sites and like
to use a lot of anti-malware apps is balderdash.

I eschew GG for anything related to posting messages, but even tho' GG
has now become greatly deprecated since its former advanced search
power, like many other search tools when used 'correctly' (considering
that its power is now less predictable) GG is still a great tool for
acquiring a message thread for display.

I would say that I can pretty much always acquire any given old 'known'
thread in GG, and it is the most reliable way for me to 'show' a
discussion by providing a link.

For a single message for which I have the m-id, I like to use HK's tool,
because GG is now terrible about 'simply' accessing by m-id in that
advanced search function, whereas in the past it used to be great.

> I visited it a few times and always went away angry at the mess I
> found there.

GG is full of spam and 'disorder' because of the limited way you can
display the unfiltered messages.

> I am not particularly fond of 'forums', or the way the work, and
> googlegroups seemed to be worse than the rest.

I don't really consider GG to be the same as a forum.

Forums benefit from their administration/moderation, which GG totally
lacks. I normally avoid forums except when they 'pop up' as a hit in my
search for something. I /normally/ avoid forums to post a question
except when I'm 'desperate' because I haven't found what I want
elsewhere and the forum is known for gurus deep and wide.

The Ubuntu forum is like that. In my experience, the Moz forums are not.

> I currently have all messages from it blocked to decrease spam and
> trolls.

Blocking messages posted from GG is a completely different issue than
being able to use the rich resources to be found in the archive of
newsgroup messages.


--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gone too far

Ron Hunter
On 10/16/2011 12:00 PM, Mike Easter wrote:

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Mike Easter wrote:
>
>>> I agree that Tbird has a severe 'references access' problem
>
>>> The strategy I prefer for the very very rare occasion that I want to
>>> review an old thread history is to access and display it on
>>> googlegroups.
>
>> Well, I put googlegroups in the same category as malware sites.
>
> Malware sites? Normal sites are just as likely to be malware sites as
> 'naughty' sites. The idea that someone can surf around recklessly and
> insecurely configured just because they avoid 'dangerous' sites and like
> to use a lot of anti-malware apps is balderdash.
>
> I eschew GG for anything related to posting messages, but even tho' GG
> has now become greatly deprecated since its former advanced search
> power, like many other search tools when used 'correctly' (considering
> that its power is now less predictable) GG is still a great tool for
> acquiring a message thread for display.
>
> I would say that I can pretty much always acquire any given old 'known'
> thread in GG, and it is the most reliable way for me to 'show' a
> discussion by providing a link.
>
> For a single message for which I have the m-id, I like to use HK's tool,
> because GG is now terrible about 'simply' accessing by m-id in that
> advanced search function, whereas in the past it used to be great.
>
>> I visited it a few times and always went away angry at the mess I
>> found there.
>
> GG is full of spam and 'disorder' because of the limited way you can
> display the unfiltered messages.
>
>> I am not particularly fond of 'forums', or the way the work, and
>> googlegroups seemed to be worse than the rest.
>
> I don't really consider GG to be the same as a forum.
>
> Forums benefit from their administration/moderation, which GG totally
> lacks. I normally avoid forums except when they 'pop up' as a hit in my
> search for something. I /normally/ avoid forums to post a question
> except when I'm 'desperate' because I haven't found what I want
> elsewhere and the forum is known for gurus deep and wide.
>
> The Ubuntu forum is like that. In my experience, the Moz forums are not.
>
>> I currently have all messages from it blocked to decrease spam and
>> trolls.
>
> Blocking messages posted from GG is a completely different issue than
> being able to use the rich resources to be found in the archive of
> newsgroup messages.
>
>
It's rather like reaching into the toilet to retrieve your diamond ring.
  Not something you want to do, and not something you want to do often.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Gone too far

Mike Easter-2
Ron Hunter wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:

>> Blocking messages posted from GG is a completely different issue than
>> being able to use the rich resources to be found in the archive of
>> newsgroup messages.

> It's rather like reaching into the toilet to retrieve your diamond ring.
>  Not something you want to do, and not something you want to do often.

I don't agree with your analogy.

The current search algo for GG is to search all kinds of places, GG's
archive of usenet posts as well as huge numbers of 'web forums' some of
which are created independently and some of which suck/scrape from
usenet groups.

In GG's advanced search function, if you want to focus on a particular
usenet newsgroup (or in this case moz newsgroup), that is configurable.

This subthread started out with the 'problem' of how do you go about
showing someone a link to an old newsgroup's thread which is extensive.

Since you/we don't know how the target user that we are talking to is
configured in terms of having all of the messages which are currently on
the giganews moz server stored for offline use, then it is best to
provide a link to all of those old messages with some other archive of
the moz server's group's messages.

The only such archive is that of GG. HK's M-ID tool doesn't even access
a single m-id of a message posted to this moz server.

So, while I agree with your concept that like the diamond ring some
particular sought information or thread is 'valuable' and difficult to
replace with something else, I don't agree that using GG advanced search
tool is akin to reaching in the toilet.

The way GG starts looking like a toilet is when you are trying to use it
as if it were an nntp news server to read and post messages to.

I would never do that; while I would and do use GG as an archive every
day. GG the archive and search tool (even in its currently deprecated
state) is a unique and valuable resource, not a toilet.

GG the news reader and posting agent is an abomination to be avoided
like a toilet.


--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

John McWilliams via TB
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 10/15/11   PDT 6:26 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:

> On 10/15/2011 6:05 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 04:11:48 -0500, Ron Hunter<[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I understand that I if tried to do that with every message, I would
>>> spend several times as much time with every message, so YOU don't have
>>> to look a couple of inches down on your screen. NOT going there.
>>
>> If you can't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it.
>
> I do bother to write messages, but I don't spend time editing what
> others wrote.

Back to my point: It's a bit selfish or self centered to not take the
time to trim for others' convenience. Good trimming is a courtesy, if
nothing else.

And, yes, there're times when trimming should not be done, but very rare
in today's usenet.



_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

Terry R.-3
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 10/14/2011 5:08 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard

> On 10/14/2011 4:43 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>> Another alternative to optimal trimming would be for everything to be
>> trimmed and for the following poster to 'recapitulate' or summarize that
>> content which they intend to address, but that type of contextualizing
>> is way too much trouble normally.
>>
>>
> All that can seriously impact the time of the person doing a lot of
> support.  Not only that, it can lengthen the time it takes to get a
> usable resolution.
> The previous custom of not trimming didn't just happen.  It evolved over
> a long period of time, and served well.
>

1. You don't do "a lot of support".
2. This is .general.  No "usable resolutions" going on here...



Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

Terry R.-3
In reply to this post by John McWilliams via TB
On 10/15/2011 10:00 AM On a whim, John McWilliams pounded out on the
keyboard
>
> Huh! Reminds me of a guy who always posts an incorrect ending to his
> posts, keeping his name above the sig delimiter......
>

Do you really want to go there?

Trimming is suggested by the guidelines.  You have failed to ever show
me one bit of evidence that states that someone can't type their name
above the delimiter, and that all non-essential text is below.



Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

Terry R.-3
In reply to this post by Otto Wyss
On 10/14/2011 11:58 PM On a whim, Otto Wyss pounded out on the keyboard

> Terry R. wrote:
>> On 10/14/2011 2:21 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> I find it a lot more annoying when someone cuts important information
>>> from a post, especially if it is MY post, leaving ME looking like I
>>> don't know what's going on.  I have enough 'senior moments' without
>>> someone helping me confuse.
>>>
>> What do you care?  You filter your own posts anyway!
>>
> I don't care, I simply don't read untrimmed messages. Why shouldn't I filter my
> own posts? I know what I've written. Besides I guess you don't have understand
> what trimming messages means.
>

I replied to Ron, not you.  And I trim as I see fit, Ron doesn't at all.


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

Terry R.-3
In reply to this post by John McWilliams via TB
On 10/15/2011 10:05 AM On a whim, John McWilliams pounded out on the
keyboard

> On 10/14/11   PDT 4:18 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>> On 10/14/2011 11:35 AM On a whim, Otto Wyss pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>>
>>>> Myself, I love replies that are well trimmed, but not everyone here
>>>> agrees— or can't be arsed to do so.
>>>>
>>> It's really annoying to have first scroll down to read a sentence or
>>> two. I've
>>> stopped reading these and the following messages when people can't
>>> trimm down
>>> their replies.
>> Ron Hunter is one of the worst offenders. 100 lines of text and at the
>> bottom he types, "no".
>
> C'mon, Terry; you have made your point long ago. This is stalking, and
> is rude, crude and socially unacceptable.
>

Rude, crude, and su.  How so?

Um, what are YOU doing John?  You're still bringing up things LONG ago!
  Stalker much?



Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by Terry R.-3
Terry R. wrote:

> On 10/14/2011 5:08 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 10/14/2011 4:43 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>>> Another alternative to optimal trimming would be for everything to be
>>> trimmed and for the following poster to 'recapitulate' or summarize that
>>> content which they intend to address, but that type of contextualizing
>>> is way too much trouble normally.
>>>
>>>
>> All that can seriously impact the time of the person doing a lot of
>> support. Not only that, it can lengthen the time it takes to get a
>> usable resolution.
>> The previous custom of not trimming didn't just happen. It evolved over
>> a long period of time, and served well.
>>
>
> 1. You don't do "a lot of support".
> 2. This is .general. No "usable resolutions" going on here...
>
>
>
> Terry R.
There are two different possibilities for Trimming if your just carrying
on a conversation say just shootin the breeze. Trimming is acceptable.

On the other hand, if your giving support. Under no circumstances should
any trimming be done, for any reason.

you need to read all the replies to figure out what has been tried, what
was result of the items tried.

If most people do like I do and have short retention they can't go back
and read previous post without redownloading the post.
Then taking the time to read each post to catch up.

So for answering support questions Trimming should be banned.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.        "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net        mailto:[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

Mike Easter-2
PhillipJones wrote:

> So for answering support questions Trimming should be banned.

Ridiculous premise and conclusion.

Some support questions are full of rambling and 'wandering around'
because the questioner is confused and doesn't understand the problem,
and almost none of what has thus been posted by them is useful; only
'distracting' from the *real* issue. People who might help don't even
want to read it all.

Distilling all of that content down to a single line or two if possible
is exactly what needs to be done so that now the questioner's attention
is drawn to the one thing s/he said that was of importance to resolve
the problem.

What the answerer is going to be saying applies only to the words which
have been left untrimmed, not all of the noncontributory ones.


--
Mike Easter
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

John McWilliams via TB
In reply to this post by Terry R.-3
On 10/17/11   PDT 12:24 PM, Terry R. wrote:
> On 10/15/2011 10:00 AM On a whim, John McWilliams pounded out on the
> keyboard
>>
>> Huh! Reminds me of a guy who always posts an incorrect ending to his
>> posts, keeping his name above the sig delimiter......

> Do you really want to go there?
>
> Trimming is suggested by the guidelines. You have failed to ever show me
> one bit of evidence that states that someone can't type their name above
> the delimiter, and that all non-essential text is below

Oh, Terry, really; still confused??

It's never been about what one "can" or "cannot" do; it's not about "the
guidelines"; it's about common sense and courtesy.

I understand why that's so foreign to you.

--
Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense!

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

Terry R.-3
On 10/17/2011 2:42 PM On a whim, John McWilliams pounded out on the keyboard

> On 10/17/11   PDT 12:24 PM, Terry R. wrote:
>> On 10/15/2011 10:00 AM On a whim, John McWilliams pounded out on the
>> keyboard
>>> Huh! Reminds me of a guy who always posts an incorrect ending to his
>>> posts, keeping his name above the sig delimiter......
>
>> Do you really want to go there?
>>
>> Trimming is suggested by the guidelines. You have failed to ever show me
>> one bit of evidence that states that someone can't type their name above
>> the delimiter, and that all non-essential text is below
>
> Oh, Terry, really; still confused??
>

Not confused at all.  Why don't you take a look at what was being
discussed.  You decide to pipe in and start talking about a completely
different subject.

> It's never been about what one "can" or "cannot" do; it's not about "the
> guidelines"; it's about common sense and courtesy.
>
> I understand why that's so foreign to you.
>

MY name in MY post does not show a lack of courtesy in any way shape or
form.  As I've suggested to yo many times, if you don't like it, don't
respond.  Problem solved.  And you're the only one who has an issue with
it, so it really is YOUR problem, and no one elses.

You bringing up old issues on the other hand shows a huge lack of courtesy.


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

Jay Garcia
In reply to this post by Mike Easter-2
On 17.10.2011 16:05, Mike Easter wrote:

 --- Original Message ---

> PhillipJones wrote:
>
>> So for answering support questions Trimming should be banned.
>
> Ridiculous premise and conclusion.
>
> Some support questions are full of rambling and 'wandering around'
> because the questioner is confused and doesn't understand the problem,
> and almost none of what has thus been posted by them is useful; only
> 'distracting' from the *real* issue. People who might help don't even
> want to read it all.
>
> Distilling all of that content down to a single line or two if possible
> is exactly what needs to be done so that now the questioner's attention
> is drawn to the one thing s/he said that was of importance to resolve
> the problem.
>
> What the answerer is going to be saying applies only to the words which
> have been left untrimmed, not all of the noncontributory ones.
>
>

Non-trimming worked very well on secnews. The devs liked it that way as
well. We didn't try to fix something that wasn't broke. YMMV

--
Jay Garcia
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

John McWilliams via TB
In reply to this post by Terry R.-3
On 10/17/11   PDT 4:24 PM, Terry R. wrote:

> MY name in MY post does not show a lack of courtesy in any way shape or
> form. As I've suggested to yo many times, if you don't like it, don't
> respond. Problem solved. And you're the only one who has an issue with
> it, so it really is YOUR problem, and no one elses.
>
> You bringing up old issues on the other hand shows a huge lack of courtesy.


The lack of courtesy is in repeating your error and then bleating about
how it is all right.

You should just kill-file me if you can't resist defending YOUR name's
being misplaced.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Posting etiquette, [was: TB have a.....]

Andy Civil-2
In reply to this post by Terry R.-3
On 11-10-17 07:24 PM, Terry R. wrote:

> ... you're the only one who has an issue with
> it, so it really is YOUR problem, and no one elses.

Your signature (name) is part of your signature (.sig).

--
Andy
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
123456