gates@bdmrrr.UUCP (Al Gates) (10/22/85)
This whole discussion about .signatures has taken some new turns. I recently
received a letter complementing me on my 'graphic' .signature file. The
sender of the letter noted that it helped him identify my work. Well, there
is the other side of the coin rearing its head again. Well I'd like to cloud
this issue with some facts.
My original signature contained 7 lines of text with the following number
of characters in each line: 60, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, and 76 (approximately).
My new signature contains five lines with the following number of characters
in each line: 1, 8, 66, 23, and 23 (approximately). This means that my
old signature with graphics contained about 484 characters whereas my new
signature contains 121 characters.
A typical news article probably contains about 26 lines with
maybe an average of 70 characters on each line. Thus, its size is about
1820 characters. This means that this article with my old signature file
is 19% larger than my article with the new signature file. I have reason
to believe that the cost of sending an article is directly proportional
to the number of characters in the file. Therefore, the cost of sending
my articles worldwide is increased by 19%.
So here is the question: Would I be willing to pay 19% more to gain all
of the advantages of having graphics in my signature file?
Here is the answer: It depends on how much it costs to send an article.
(19% of what?)
The next question is: Are those who pay the bills willing to pay 19% more
for a gimmick that provides me and probably others a little extra pleasure
and gives others 300 baud headaches?
answer: It depends on who is paying the bills.
Now, believe or not, here comes the point. If I were a system administrator
and paid the bills, and I had infinite financial resources, I would say
"sure, go ahead, be as creative (expensive) as you like!" On the other
hand, if I had finite resources, I would try to make the best decision that
I could as to whether graphic signatures were worth the extra cost to help
promote the net and keep some net people happy. If I felt that it wasn't
worth the extra cost, I would frown upon graphic .signatures as well.
I have included both of my .signature files so that the statistics above are in
some context.
/\ /\
/ \/^\ /\ /\/\/\ /^\ /\ /^/\^\ /\
Al Gates\^/ \/\ / \/ \/\/ \/\ / ^ \/ \^^^\
BDM Corporation \/\ /^\ / {seismo,rlgvax}!bdmrrr!gates \ /\ \
7915 Jones Branch Drive\/ \ \ / \ / \ \
McLean, Virginia 22102 \ \ \/ \/ \ \
\ \ \^^\
--
Al Gates
BDM Corporation ^ ^ ^ ^ {seismo,rlgvax}!bdmrrr!gates
7915 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102dennisg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Dennis Griesser) (10/26/85)
In article <462@bdmrrr.UUCP> gates@bdmrrr.UUCP (Al Gates) wrote about his graphic signature, now made text and simple. He ended with a copy of old and new signatures, old being... > /\ /\ > / \/^\ /\ /\/\/\ /^\ /\ /^/\^\ /\ >Al Gates\^/ \/\ / \/ \/\/ \/\ / ^ \/ \^^^\ >BDM Corporation \/\ /^\ / {seismo,rlgvax}!bdmrrr!gates \ /\ \ >7915 Jones Branch Drive\/ \ \ / \ / \ \ >McLean, Virginia 22102 \ \ \/ \/ \ \ I do not remember having seen Al's signature until a few days ago. At that time it was appended to a message defending graphic signatures. Actually, I thought that it was a hoax, intended to poke fun at graphic signatures. It didn't have a smily face, but some folks do not know about them. Some do not consider them necessary when the message is heavy enough. That signature was legit!??!?!! -- [This signature file intentionally left blank.]