Quoting Character . . . . . (was: Re: [tlug] Creating RPMs: rpmbuild is not exactly simple)

[jep200404 <jep200404@example.com>]

Josh wrote:

> What is up with this new quoting style? 

There were archives that would display plain text  '> ' as a vertical bar, 
so I was seeing if some other quoting character would thwart the 
bad interpretation. It was understandable for HTML email, 
but not for plain text email. Then the archive mangling disappeared, 
not only for new '< ' posts but also for old '> ' posts. 
So I tried to go back to the '> ' style, but botched the reversion. 

> Will you go back to the standard one? 

Hopefully I already have. 

> Yours now reads like a diff, which I find quite confusing in email.

That's funny. 

While I was experimenting with the quoting character, 
I was trying to pick the most innocuous character. 
The complement of '>', seemed to be the obvious one. 
I also considered ':'. If I really wanted to confuse things 
I would have chosen '=3E ' or something like &#62 (in plain text!). 

Jim