[imp] Signature

[Simon Brereton]

On Jan 21, 2013 2:13 PM, "Michael M Slusarz" <slusarz at horde.org> wrote:
>
> Quoting Luis Felipe Marzagao <lfbm.andamentos at gmail.com>:
>
>> I also think wrinting a msg and not seeing what will be the final text
is really confusing and nonintuitive, mainly for real life/regular users,
but since this is open source software, at least you can alter the code.
Imagine if it were proprietary/closed software.
>
>
> Several of you have raised this "argument".  And it is completely bogus.
>
> NO MUA THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN "GUARANTEES" THAT WHAT YOU "SEE" IN THE
COMPOSE WINDOW IS ACTUALLY WHAT IS SENT OUT.  MUA's add all sorts of things
to outgoing messages that users have no control of.  MUA's should be able
to change/fix formatting as necessary to fix user errors.  MUA's can
convert HTML text to plain text, or vice versa, or add different
representations of the data (which IMP allows).  An admin can add a trailer
to every message which cannot be altered by the user and will never be seen
by the user (which IMP allows).

Not that I care, but BECAUSE you've never seen an MUA that does that, is a
very good reason.  Most people contribute to open source projects to be
BETTER than what is it there.

> The simple fact with signatures IS THAT THE **USER** IS THE ONE THAT
ADDED THE SIGNATURE DATA IN THE FIRST PLACE.  This is not the case of
someone "altering" a message or "adding" data without the user's consent.
 For a signature to be added to a message, the user necessarily needed to
create the data at one point.  Nothing is being "added" or "altered" to the
message that the user has not already tacitly approved.

And therefore it would be nice for the user to decide where the signature
should go, and if for example, data should be added or subtracted.

> This is a great example of a specious argument: one that might look like
it has merit on its face, but if you even take a few seconds to analyze the
details there is absolutely no basis to it.

You may be right, but unless there's a security reason not to, I think
given the clamour the idea could at least be entertained.  I appreciate it
may not be high priority, but if it's on the list with a bounty set then
all the people who want it can contribute.

Simon