Robert Allerstorfer wrote:
that was simply the way I used to use for quoting a cut of a
discussion thread - the text after *one* ">" character is from the
person whose From: field is referred to
The problem is that, to be blunt, it isn't 1991 any more. I don't mean
that the quoting style is obsolete; I prefer it as well. But other,
inferior methods abound nowadays. A lot of mail clients quote flush
left under a separator, for one horrible example.
Let's say John quotes Mary flush left. Then Jane quotes John, including
his quote from Mary, with a column of citation characters. Now John's
words and Mary's both each have one ">" before them.
So half of my point is that you can't rely on counting citation
characters to imply who wrote what.
The other half of my point is that most people, especially those who
quote flush left, don't notice, much less count, the number of citation
characters. If you put Pam's words immediately under "Dick said," then
you're attributing them to Dick, no matter how many citation characters
are at the beginning of the line.
Never wanted to be dishonest, why should I even do so?
Why did you go to the trouble of editing "Robert Allerstorfer wrote"
from the text you quoted from me, then?
I will try to avoid such confusion in the future in this list.
Please try to avoid it everywhere on the net.
Anyhow, the upshot is that the function you got from the additional
dollar sign was to re-soften the spaces that the extra quotes hardened,
not to expand the variables. But that provided an example of how an
extra dollar modifier acts like sh's eval.
_______________________________________________
procmail mailing list
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail