GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 345555
Signature script not run using 0.99
Last modified: 2006-06-23 06:34:52 UTC
Please describe the problem: I have been using Pan 0.14.2.91 for some time now. When I create a new USENET post or reply to a USENET post this version of Pan will "automagically" create my message signature from a script I wrote that uses changing data from my OS as part of the signature. In 0.99 this feature stopped working or is broken. As a result I went back to Pan 0.14.2.91 until I can see that this feature works again. Steps to reproduce: 1. Create a script to generate a signature with random data. Set the script to be executable. 2. Tell Pan 0.99 to use the script in the signature settings. 3. Create a new post and look at the signature. Actual results: A copy of the script is placed in the message rather than the output from running the script. Expected results: That the script is run and the output from the script is used as in previous versions of Pan. Does this happen every time? Yes Other information: No
My 2 cents: not implementing this in 1.0 betas is a good thing. I see far too many cases where users have executable sig files, but don't realize that Pan will execute it. Then they wonder why they're not seeing their sig. I don't have anything against scripts as sigs, but the way it's implemented in 0.14 is not very intuitive. Perhaps a checkmark 'this is a script' in the posting profile would be better.
(In reply to comment #1) > My 2 cents: not implementing this in 1.0 betas is a good thing. I see far too > many cases where users have executable sig files, but don't realize that Pan > will execute it. Then they wonder why they're not seeing their sig. I will respond by saying, there is no way to make software "idiot proof" because we humans always come up with better "idiots". Just read alt.sysdmin.recovery archives on Google Groups for a while if you don't believe me. The best we can do is make it "idiot resistant". ;-) Since files are not normally created as executable by default on most *n?x OS's one has to do that on purpose. Yes, GUI file mungers will do this but again one has to make it happen. So, IMO, the fault above is user error. > I don't have anything against scripts as sigs, but the way it's implemented in > 0.14 is not very intuitive. Perhaps a checkmark 'this is a script' in the > posting profile would be better. I think making it an option with a check box is a better idea than removing it altogether. It is a feature I have come to enjoy using and do not want to give it up.
I agree that it's a useful feature, and that an "executable" checkbox would be more intuitive. I'm sure Chris remembers the same letters on pan-users that I do, asking some variation on how to get script-based sig genrators to work.
Fixed for 0.101.