Re: Excellent signature

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 24 Jan 2003, Iain Buchanan wrote:

> On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 19:06, Rob Unsworth wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 Jonathan_Pickard@scee.net wrote:
> > 
> > > This signature which I saw on Kevin Waterson's mail should get the 
> > > message across. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
> > > See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
> > 
> > When I first saw this sig I was all for supporting the FSF in this 
> > campaign. That was until I read the web page. I found that in part it 
> > is self defeating, because it contains the following.
> > 
> >  "Receiving Word attachments is bad for you because they can carry 
> >   viruses........"
> > 
> > Two paragraphs later
> > 
> >  "To convert the file to HTML using Word is simple......."
> > 
> > Apparently the FSF oppose receiving  a virus sent with a Word 
> > document, but if the virus is sent via HTML, thats OK.
> > 
> > Bill G must have laughed himself to sleep after reading that.
> > 
> > The FSF will get no support from me on this one.
> > 
> "Please send comments on these web pages to webmasters@gnu.org"
> don't just complain, do something.  The author's name is also there.

It was cc'd to gnu@gnu.org.

I was responding to a post advocating it as a good sig. I don't agree, and 
gave one reason, there were others.

To use that sig, I would be advocating the use of HTML in mail, as the 
mail itself or as an attachment.

I oppose both.

Regards,
Rob





-- 
Psyche-list mailing list
Psyche-list@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Red Hat General Discussion]     [Centos]     [Kernel]     [Red Hat Install]     [Red Hat Watch]     [Red Hat Development]     [Red Hat 9]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux