Well, Randy, here's my thought on the matter:

The standard (since day 1) "marker" for quoted text HERE has been the greater-than sign.
Now using that as the marker should work 99% of the time. For the other 1% there would be some quoted text that was NOT removed.

Is that so bad???? I mean its not as if extra text would get deleted, because text that was original but had a greater-than sign in it would not be 'found' as duplicate and so would remain.

So, while there may be a small hole or two in the idea, overall it accomplishes what is wanted/needed.

And, of course, being an optional thing, people who were worried about this non-worry could leave things as they are.


>
>I would suggest that AutoQuote be available to PUTM's only; that should reduce storage and bandwith significantly. I'm thinking that Michel would have a challenge to find a 'quoted' marker that could be consistently interpreted, especially when you offer the user(s) the opportunity to edit the quoted text.
>
>The point of view that quotes are needed to determine context may be based on weather you are on-line with a big pipe (easy to click back to the previous message), or reading an e-mail, either off-line or on-line and you're not logged in to the UT. We've become quite spoiled with nearly instant access to anything we want to read.