Windows 95 support ?

[mwoehlke]

George wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 03:43:03PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 26 April 2006 15:30, mwoehlke wrote:
>>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:04:40AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
>>>>> Christopher Faylor, le Tue 25 Apr 2006 14:05:54 -0400, a ?crit :
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 06:01:49PM +0000, g.r.vansickle@xxxxx
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>                                             tsk, tsk.
>>>>
>>>> This really is a losing battle isn't it?
>>> Has anyone considered reconfiguring the mail software to 'correct'
>>> this automatically?
>>   Well, it's trivial to configure rewriting of email headers.
>>
>>  But we're talking about body text here, and the web archive of this
>>  list.  If you keep what you present to the world as an authentic
>>  record of what people wrote, then there are moral and perhaps even
>>  legal implications if you feel you're allowed to rewrite it - even in
>>  what seems a mechanical and trivial way, the thing is that what you
>>  are then presenting in your "archive" is in fact *not verbatim*.
>  
> You're correct in saying it wouldn't be varbatim, but I wonder how
> important that really is.  My own carefully-preserved archives of
> correspondence and list subscriptions go back years, but I'd be the
> first to admit that most of it is rubbish, including anything written by
> me.
> 
> As for any related legal issues, I'd wager a hippo to a dollar that
> Google's lawyers have sorted them out long ago.
> 
>> Plus the problems it would cause when somebody quotes a bit of program
>> code with an at sign in it that triggers a false positive and gets
>> mangled into non-compilable gibberish.
> 
> Might be a fair compromise.  Personally, I find Google's interface
> unreadable, but I doubt I'm alone in saying that I appreciate the
> lengths they've gone to in preserving the confidentiality of personal
> information. 

Also, if the munge is "@" -> "<at>", it's not that hard to reverse with 
gray matter. I wouldn't do anything more severe than that (like 
obliterating the domain, for example, as was done in the post I 
originally replied to).

As for the legal/ethical/moral issues, as long as you *tell* people you 
do it, I don't think it's a big deal. It's not like you're changing the 
meaning of their message (although you may be positively misrepresenting 
their intelligence :-D).

-- 
Matthew
All of my signatures are 100% original. Including this one.