>>> "DR" == David Rogers writes: > Uwe Brauer writes: >>>>> "DA" == Dmitry Alexandrov writes: >>> Both approaches are equally fundamentally broken in their premise, >>> but >>> the latter is at least easy ignorable recipient-side. >> >> I am not sure I understand, why you consider the use case of >> replying to several >> recipient with the same mail, as fundamentally broken? > I believe there may have been sarcasm involved, and I believe the > point was something similar to "Using any kind of quoting marks > that are not handled automatically by everyone's email client, is > almost as bad as sending them html - so in the same way that you > kindly send plain text instead of html, please also kindly use > built-in automatic quoting marks only". I thought that, but then I hoped he had some magic lisp code hidden somewhere. BTW talking about idiosyncratic styles: Wouldn't that cover the use of *very long (more than 80 chars) lines* which some client, such as gnus, rather prefer not to send, at least they emit a warning. Just a thought.....