jgd@uwmcsd1.UUCP (03/22/87)
The four line limit on .signature files just bit me, so I'm biting back. Upon
reflection, I have concluded that this limit is incorrectly implemented, or at
least the *problem* has been incorrectly defined.
As I see it, the purpose of the .signature limit is to reduce the "size"
of the signature portion of a message. Admittedly, some individuals have
gone a little overboard here, but limiting the signature to four *lines* misses
the point. What we *really* want to do is limit the number of *characters*
allowed in a .signature file.
With a limit of (I'll just pick an arbitrary number... let's see now...)
324 characters in a .signature file, the user can format it any way he/she
sees fit. One line of 324 characters, four lines of 80 characters (does that
sound familiar?), eight lines (almost) of 40 characters, etc. This gives the
poster the flexibility to produce readable signatures without imposing
excessively on net.bandwidth.
Consider this message to be a "Request for Change" to News 2.11. Should this
be incorporated in the next set of updates to News? Since I went to the
trouble of posting this, I obviously think so.
Comments? Corrections? Alternatives? Flames?
By the way, the following (manually included) .signature file is 277 characters
long, including the leading "-- ". I *could* fit it on four lines, but it
wouldn't be readable. :-)
--
John G Dobnick
Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
UUCP: {ihnp4|uwvax|uwmacc}!uwmcsd1!jgd
INTERNET: jgd@csd1.milw.wisc.edu
"Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation,
and is thus a source of civilized delight." -- William Safirespaf@gt-karloff.UUCP (03/22/87)
In article <1893@uwmcsd1.UUCP> jgd@uwmcsd1.UUCP (John G Dobnick) writes: >By the way, the following (manually included) .signature file is 277 characters >long, including the leading "-- ". I *could* fit it on four lines, but it >wouldn't be readable. :-) >-- >John G Dobnick >Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee >UUCP: {ihnp4|uwvax|uwmacc}!uwmcsd1!jgd >INTERNET: jgd@csd1.milw.wisc.edu > >"Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation, >and is thus a source of civilized delight." -- William Safire Sure it would! Just delete those last three lines you have in there with the quote, and you have a nice 4-line signature. The four line limit was carefully chosen so that you have room for your full name, an organization/title, and two lines of address. It is *NOT* necessary to enlighten us with maps, pictures, quotes from interesting sources, circuit diagrams, passages from religious works, or other cruft. If you want to pass along such enlightenment to us, do it in the body of the message. I love instructive epigrams and quotes, but they don't belong in standard signatures. The signature is to identify the sender and indicate some way of responding reliably via e-mail. If you need to demonstrate how erudite and insightful you are, please do so in the *article itself.* Many people set up their news software to not display the signatures at all unless specifically requested -- your literary efforts just add to transport overhead. Gene Spafford Software Engineering Research Center (SERC), Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf@Gatech.EDU uucp: ...!{akgua,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf
mlandau@Diamond.UUCP (03/22/87)
In news.software.b (<1893@uwmcsd1.UUCP>), jgd@uwmcsd1.UUCP (John G Dobnick) writes: > >As I see it, the purpose of the .signature limit is to reduce the "size" >of the signature portion of a message. Admittedly, some individuals have >gone a little overboard here, but limiting the signature to four *lines* misses >the point. What we *really* want to do is limit the number of *characters* >allowed in a .signature file. Well, that's not really true. The purpose of the 4-line limit is to reduce BOTH the number of lines and the number of characters. One of the problems it tries to solve is the all-too-common instance of a 5-line message with a 15-line signature attached. Just try reading a couple dozen of those at 1200 baud, then see if you still think that reducing the line count of signatures isn't important. -- Matt Landau BBN Laboratories, Inc. mlandau@diamond.bbn.com 10 Moulton Street, Cambridge MA 02238 ...seismo!diamond.bbn.com!mlandau (617) 497-2429
avolio@decuac.UUCP (03/23/87)
In article <1893@uwmcsd1.UUCP>, jgd@uwmcsd1.UUCP (John G Dobnick) writes: > The four line limit on .signature files just bit me, so I'm biting back. Upon > reflection, I have concluded that this limit is incorrectly implemented, or at > least the *problem* has been incorrectly defined. > You got bitten because you want to use the signature line to make a statement. That is not its purpose.... (Although your signature with quote is much nicer than people who chart out with lines, brackets, etc. every possible path to their machine. Ah, if only Adam hadn't sinned...) Be that as it may, perhaps setting a character limit is reasonable. Since the current limit is 4 lines (and, by the way, since sources are distributed, it would be an easy change for your netnews administrator to make locally) perhaps 4*80 characters should be allowed? I have another suggestion (though it may be arguably bad to do). It might be nice to have an option to {read,v}news that says "do not show signatures". Fred.
lawitzke@msudoc.UUCP (03/29/87)
think a 5-line limit is far more realistic: Name UUCP address Title ARPA address Organization CSNET address Mail Stop Office phone City, State, Zip Home phone I think this is far better than the four line limit. Perhaps a poll is in order to see how people feel of 4 vs 5. I volunteer to collect the votes and post the results. -- John H. Lawitzke UUCP ...ihnp4!msudoc!eecae!lawitzke Division of Engineering Research Michigan State University Office: (517) 355-3769 E. Lansing, MI, 48824 Home: (517) 332-3610
page@ulowell.UUCP (03/30/87)
You don't need that much information in every posting you make.
The only need for a .signature (in my humble opinion) is to
identify yourself in case somebody saves the article w/o
the headers and a month later wants to reply or something.
Your real name, organization and return address are usually
specified in the header. What other information does anyone
need? Your title? That's not usually not necessary; if it
ever is, you can put it in the article body.
Different people will have different requirements, but all
should fit within four lines quite easily. No need to change it.
..Bob
--
Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. page@ulowell.{uucp,edu,csnet} 617/452-5000fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (03/30/87)
Personally, I find that one line of signature does just fine... Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu
Karl.Kleinpaste@cbstr1.UUCP (03/30/87)
lawitzke@msudoc.UUCP writes: > I think a 5-line limit is far more realistic: > Name UUCP address > Title ARPA address > Organization CSNET address > Mail Stop Office phone > City, State, Zip Home phone This is silly, folks. All the relevant pieces of this are already in the assorted headers of every article. We don't need it repeated at the bottom. [1] Your name is in the From: line. (Mine is my mail address, in fact. Yours is probably parenthesized after your mail address.) [2] Your title is not relevant to 30,000 Usenet readers - I prefer to know you by the content of your postings, not the name of the office you hold. [3] There's an Organization: header line which holds (guess?) an organization name quite nicely, and you can edit it when in Pnews or postnews. [4] Lots of us haven't got "mail stops" in the sense that it identifies a place within an organization; my "mail stop" is my office number, which is none of your business. [5] City, state, and whatnot can be incorporated easily with "Organization." [6] Your UUCP address is already present in both the Path: and From: lines (From: line preferred, of course). [7] An ARPANet address is frequently the same as a UUCP address, e.g., this host is properly known as cbstr1.att.com, and I don't care *what* transport mechanism you use to find it. [8] A VERY small fraction of the planet has a CSNet address of any kind. [9] An office phone is going to cause you more trouble than it's worth. I used to do this, and I found myself getting really screwy phone calls from all over the world (e.g., Scotland) when I wanted to get Real Work done. [10] Do you *really* want to give your home phone number to 30,000 Usenet readers, a large portion of which can be fairly said to have (um) unusual senses of humor? I freely acknowledge that items 2, 9, and 10 are my opinion. The rest are basic technical information already provided, or, in some cases, providable if you care to put it to proper use. I'm not really trying to beat up on anyone. But I am awfully tired of the increasingly cute, semantic-content-free, large, verbose, repetitive, and redundant signatures people have gotten used to including. (Complete with unneeded opinion disclaimers and [now] copyright notices with restricted distribution exclusion clauses!) I *like* the 4-line limit, and in fact I wish it were a 2-line limit, just to cut down on the nonsense. Karl
merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (03/30/87)
Between the folks who end up with multiple signatures, and the folks who include 40-line works of art, I'd vote for a zero-line limit. Take out automatic signatures altogether. -- David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon PhoneNet: (202) 694-6900 UUCP: *!seismo!sundc!hqda-ai!merlin ARPA: merlin%hqda-ai.uucp@brl.arpa "I'm at least as infallible as the Pope!"
newbery@vuwcomp.UUCP (03/31/87)
In article <1305@msudoc.UUCP> lawitzke@msudoc.UUCP (John Lawitzke) writes: | think a 5-line limit is far more realistic: ... |I think this is far better than the four line limit. Perhaps a poll is |in order ... Why not a character limit, say 256? This is actually less than four 80 character lines but allows more flexibility in my opinion. The aim of the .signature restriction is to save bytes is it not? -- Michael Newbery ACSnet: newbery@vuwcomp.nz UUCP: {ubc-vision,alberta}!calgary!vuwcomp!newbery Une boule qui roule tue les poules. (Landslides kill chickens)
sean@ukma.UUCP (03/31/87)
In article <1305@msudoc.UUCP> lawitzke@msudoc.UUCP (John Lawitzke) writes: > think a 5-line limit is far more realistic: > >I think this is far better than the four line limit. Perhaps a poll is >in order to see how people feel of 4 vs 5. I volunteer to collect the >votes and post the results. I agree. I recieved no poll as to how many lines a signature could be, nor was I asked about the 50% rule. If Usenet is to remain true to it's concept, these decisions need to be made by asking the people, not by a few who decide that this is the best way to do things. Sean -- =========================================================================== Sean Casey UUCP: cbosgd!ukma!sean CSNET: sean@ms.uky.csnet ARPA: ukma!sean@anl-mcs.arpa BITNET: sean@UKMA.BITNET Copyright (C) 1987 Sean Casey, restricted redistribution prohibited.
roy@phri.UUCP (03/31/87)
In article <186@cbstr1.att.com> Karl.Kleinpaste@cbstr1.att.com writes: > [1] Your name is in the From: line. And what am I supposed to do if I want to reply to somebody and their From: line looks like foo!bar%baz.csnet@random-host? I've seen lots of From: lines that didn't make any sense after random software on umpteen different sites got through with it. > [2] Your title is not relevant to 30,000 Usenet readers - I prefer to > know you by the content of your postings, not the name of the office > you hold. I for one would like to know just who you are. If you are purporting to give out useful information, it would be nice if I had some idea of how qualified you were to be giving this advice. > [7] An ARPANet address is frequently the same as a UUCP address, e.g., > this host is properly known as cbstr1.att.com, and I don't care *what* > transport mechanism you use to find it. That's all well and good, once the whole world converts to domains. Until then, it's a good idea to give your address on as many different networks as your machine is on. Don't get me wrong, I think 20-line signatures with pictures of the wife and kids and half the uucp map are a waste of time, space, and money. But to outlaw signatures altogether is going too far. -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 "you can't spell deoxyribonucleic without unix!"
Karl.Kleinpaste@cbstr1.UUCP (03/31/87)
roy@phri.UUCP writes: > > [2] Your title is not relevant... > > I for one would like to know just who you are. If you are > purporting to give out useful information, it would be nice if I had some > idea of how qualified you were to be giving this advice. As I said, this was an item of opinion. Feel to keep yours, I'll do the same with mine. I have no idea what Guy Harris' title at Sun is, I just know he does good work. All your title tells me is that you're the sysadmin of phri; it's from experience of your postings that I know you make useful contributions. > > [7] An ARPANet address is frequently the same as a UUCP address > > That's all well and good, once the whole world converts to domains. > Until then, it's a good idea to give your address on as many different > networks as your machine is on. Hm. Well, all I can say is that I think one of the best ways to propagate a standard is to put it to use. The sooner we all do something domainified with mail addresses, the sooner the few remaining sites that don't understand domains will have to convert. > Don't get me wrong, I think 20-line signatures with pictures of the > wife and kids and half the uucp map are a waste of time, space, and money. > But to outlaw signatures altogether is going too far. Sure. I don't want them abolished entirely; but things are going off the deep end fast. The aging craze of opinion disclaimers and the very recent flurry of restricted distribution exclusion clauses come quickly to mind. Karl
rick@seismo.UUCP (03/31/87)
> I agree. I recieved no poll as to how many lines a signature could be, nor > was I asked about the 50% rule. If Usenet is to remain true to it's concept, > these decisions need to be made by asking the people, not by a few who decide > that this is the best way to do things. Sorry to disillusion you, but Usenet is not a democracy. You don't have a vote on anything. Usenet is conceptually an anarchy. (This is presuming that there is a concept of what Usenet is. It is questionable if a concensus exists) As with any anarchistic system, you are free to do whatever you want. You can use the free software that is provided. You can write your own because you don't like it. You can modify it, since you get the source. You can even start your own network. One of the few things that is clear is that you don't have a vote in things. (Sorry, but it's a fact of life) If you make a good suggestion to people it will probably be accepted. ---rick
geoff@desint.UUCP (04/01/87)
In article <6213@ukmj.ukma.ms.uky.csnet> sean@ukmj.ms.uky.csnet (Sean Casey) writes: > If Usenet is to remain true to it's concept, > these decisions need to be made by asking the people, not by a few who decide > that this is the best way to do things. Nothing could be further from the truth. "A" news was written by two people; they didn't ask anyone's permission and designed it largely themselves. The same has been true of all of the subsequent major improvements. As an example, Larry Wall does not generally ask the net's permission to make changes in the way 'rn' behaves. He perceives a problem, designs a solution, and posts it. Once in a while people don't like a change and raise a storm. Larry always responds to the complaints in a professional manner, usually with a fix. But net development would slow to a crawl if the people who are doing the REAL WORK asked the net's opinion on every decision. -- Geoff Kuenning {hplabs,ihnp4}!trwrb!desint!geoff
billw@wolf.UUCP (04/02/87)
In article <325@hqda-ai.UUCP>, merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (David S. Hayes) writes: > > Between the folks who end up with multiple signatures, and > the folks who include 40-line works of art, I'd vote for a > zero-line limit. Take out automatic signatures altogether. > -- > David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon PhoneNet: (202) 694-6900 > UUCP: *!seismo!sundc!hqda-ai!merlin ARPA: merlin%hqda-ai.uucp@brl.arpa > > "I'm at least as infallible as the Pope!" ..then people would simply type a couple of dashes and concatenate .signature. And what about your own four lines? -- Bill Wisner {sdcsvax,ihnp4}!jack!wolf!billw Everything is under control.
merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (04/03/87)
In article <280@wolf.UUCP>, billw@wolf.UUCP (Bill Wisner) writes: > ..then people would simply type a couple of dashes and concatenate > .signature. And what about your own four lines? ==> (setf *flame* :medium) <== What about my own four lines? They're included exactly once, they meet the current standard for signatures (4 lines), and most of the characters involved provide legitimate information. Besides, one of those 4 lines is blank, requiring a total of ONE BYTE to transmit. ==> (setf *flame* nil) <== I should have been more specific. I was not suggesting that we should not allow any sort of signature at all. I have no objection to people MANUALLY including their signature files. At least that way, they'd only include them once. I think much of the problem comes from the disparity between mailers and news readers. Mail usually does not have a signature _automatically_ added, but news does. I will continue to be annoyed by, and occassionally object to, people who post bit-mapped pictures of Rand-McNally Usenet Atlas. My apologies for not saying what I really meant the first time around. -- David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon PhoneNet: (202) 694-6900 UUCP: *!seismo!sundc!hqda-ai!merlin ARPA: merlin%hqda-ai.uucp@brl.arpa
mcb@styx.UUCP (04/03/87)
In article <1305@msudoc.UUCP> lawitzke@msudoc.UUCP (John Lawitzke) writes: > I think a 5-line limit is far more realistic: > > Name UUCP address > Title ARPA address > Organization CSNET address > Mail Stop Office phone > City, State, Zip Home phone Twaddle. This isn't a business card, folks. If you're asking specifically for paper mail in your article, you might mention your (paper) addrress, but otherwise, who cares? Same with telephones. Titles are useless; who the hell cares if something was posted by the president of FooBar Industries, or the washroom attendant? (For the person who suggested that titles were useful in determining peoples' qualifications in technical matters, all I can say is "dram on" -- if you can tell the difference between a "Senior Progammer/Analyst" and a "Principal Member of the Technical Staff" and whatever other title inflation goes on these days, congratulations.) Automatic signatures are an idea whose time has passed. I've seen too damn many half-page cute drawings, boxed outlines (can you imagine how painful those are at 1200 bps or lower?), repetitive quotations from plays (harryb@slovax comes to mind), company logos (AT&T, Pyramid, and a couple others : you know who you are!), silly pictures, and the like. Come on, folks. Get a life. I don't use a .signature; I yank it manually into the editor each time; that way I can easily add an explanatory line if needed. I'd put it on one line, but the UUCP path stuff won't fit, and until everybody's doing domains it's still needed. If you need more than your name, e-mail address (domain style and path-style if necessary), and a single explanatory line one in a rare while, you're blowing it. Michael C. Berch News/mail admin - styx <--- "explanatory line" mcb@lll-tis-b.arpa / {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg,lll-lcc,mordor}!styx!mcb
dpz@paul.UUCP (04/04/87)
> From: newbery@vuwcomp.UUCP (Michael Newbery) > Why not a character limit, say 256? This is actually less than four 80 > character lines but allows more flexibility in my opinion. The aim of the > .signature restriction is to save bytes is it not? I get the feeling this whole discussion is really not to save bytes, but some higher cosmic purpose. dpz -- David P. Zimmerman rutgers!dpz dpz@rutgers.edu
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (04/05/87)
> The four line limit was carefully chosen so that you have room for your > full name, an organization/title, and two lines of address. It is > *NOT* necessary to enlighten us with maps, pictures, quotes from > interesting sources, circuit diagrams, passages from religious works, > or other cruft. If you want to pass along such enlightenment to us, do > it in the body of the message. Or simply keep it terse. It is not impossible to combine name, organization, a bit of a picture, some humor, *and* a short quote into a signature that takes only three or four lines. I've seen it done, although I'm not quite so ambitious myself. (I take the view that my legitimate signature -- name, affiliation, and mildly detailed address -- will fit in two lines, and it is improper of me to lengthen that. Whatever I can fit in the rest of those two lines is fair game. :-) There is a lot of white space in many of the more objectionable signatures.) Note that neither your physical address nor your phone number(s) are of any interest to most readers. -- "We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the dust. Which shall it be?" {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (04/05/87)
> You don't need that much information in every posting you make. > The only need for a .signature (in my humble opinion) is to > identify yourself in case somebody saves the article w/o > the headers and a month later wants to reply or something. Not quite. The *real* need for a signature is to indicate which electronic addresses have some prayer of working, and working efficiently. > Your real name, organization and return address are usually > specified in the header... The real name and organization in the header do not necessarily match those of the sender. And the header return addresses just aren't adequate. The From: line will be very useful when everything is domainized and all the domain-based names are properly registered. At present, that is a happy dream rather than a reality. The Path: line does not necessarily have any relationship to a practical address. (We have a widget that sends an automatic reply to some of the "test" newsgroups, using the Path: as a mail address. We get several undeliverable-mail bounces a week... and test-group traffic is not that heavy!) > Different people will have different requirements, but all > should fit within four lines quite easily. No need to change it. This, I agree with. -- "We must choose: the stars or Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology the dust. Which shall it be?" {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
det@herman.UUCP (04/06/87)
Really folks, half the time you don't even need a signature -- I hardly ever use one, most of the info you need is already in the header anyway. All i really need is the address to reply to and i get that automatically with either a followup or simply an "r" in mail. Otherwise, if there doesn't happen to be a name (very rarely happens) then i might need a signature so i can say: "Hi joe" instead of "hey you"... /* no signature follows */
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (04/08/87)
As quoted from <268@herman.UUCP> by det@herman.UUCP (Derek Terveer): +--------------- | Really folks, half the time you don't even need a signature -- I hardly ever | use one, most of the info you need is already in the header anyway. All i | really need is the address to reply to and i get that automatically with either | a followup or simply an "r" in mail. Otherwise, if there doesn't happen to be +--------------- Assuming, of course, that everyone's mail works. Since cwruecmp's host tables are messed up, it takes major hacking to send to non-UUCP sites. Also, news arriving on ncoast often has horrendous Path: lines, and pathalias files cause uumail and elm to dump core for some reason. So I have to manually generate addresses, and .signatures are INVALUABLE for this. (I concede that my aXcess logo may be out of place.) ++Brando -- ____ ______________ / \ / __ __ __ \ Brandon S. Allbery | QUOTE OF THE DAY: ___ | /__> / \ / \ aXcess Company | / \ | | `--, `--, 6615 Center St. #A1-105 | ` | | \__/ \__/ \__/ Mentor, OH 44060-4101 | \____/ \______________/ +1 216 974 9210 | cbatt!cwruecmp!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery%case.CSNET@relay.CS.NET BALLBERY (UUCP) (CSNET/Internet) (MCIMail)
meg@m-net.UUCP (04/08/87)
In article <21368@styx.UUCP> mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes: > >Automatic signatures are an idea whose time has passed. I've seen too >damn many half-page cute drawings, boxed outlines (can you imagine how >painful those are at 1200 bps or lower?), repetitive quotations from As someone who has to dial through two systems simply to access news, and whose resulting net baud rate is about 800 bps or less, I can attest that some of these .signatures are *really* a pain. Four lines 80 characters each should be MORE than enough, if you really have to give out more info stick it in the body of your article. Gack. -- Meg Geddes M-NET, Ann Arbor, Michigan {!ihnp4!itivax!m-net!meg} or {!ihnp4!chinet!meg} Don't take life so seriously... it ain't nohow permanent...
mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) (04/09/87)
In article <2623@phri.UUCP>, roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > In article <186@cbstr1.att.com> Karl.Kleinpaste@cbstr1.att.com writes: >> [2] Your title is not relevant to 30,000 Usenet readers - I prefer >> to know you by the content of your postings, not the name of the >> office you hold. > I for one would like to know just who you are. Ok. > If you are purporting to give out useful information, it would be > nice if I had some idea of how qualified you were to be giving this > advice. Surely you don't imagine that a fancy title makes someone qualified to give advice?! A good reputation is a much better indication of how qualified someone is. Let's look at a real live .signature: Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu No title. Nothing to make you think that he knows a structure pointer from a bicycle tire - except that you've come to recognize his name (which you *have*, haven't you?). I really can't see that a title makes any difference - people with fancy titles are just as likely to spew ignorant blather all over the place as anyone else. Down from 6 lines to 2 (I figure pathalias and similar programs have spread widely enough that one line of address should be enough), der Mouse (mouse@mcgill-vision.uucp)
det@herman.UUCP (04/10/87)
In article <2329@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: > Assuming, of course, that everyone's mail works. Yes, I was assuming that, and I think that for most sites (and by most I mean >90%) mail works in the expected way. > So I have to manually generate addresses, and .signatures are INVALUABLE for I too have occasionally had to manually generate addresses for a particular mail to someone or other, but, with the signature, I had two choices: the path listed in the header, and the path listed in the signature. > this. (I concede that my aXcess logo may be out of place.) Your concession is in order here. It *is* kind of a neat logo though, in spite of the fact that it doesn't come out real well on my unisys uts30 terminal! (:-)
john@uw-nsr.UUCP (04/10/87)
In article <2329@ncoast.UUCP> allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: ... >So I have to manually generate addresses, and .signatures are INVALUABLE for >this. (I concede that my aXcess logo may be out of place.) > >++Brando >-- > ____ ______________ >/ \ / __ __ __ \ Brandon S. Allbery | QUOTE OF THE DAY: > ___ | /__> / \ / \ aXcess Company | >/ \ | | `--, `--, 6615 Center St. #A1-105 | ` >| | \__/ \__/ \__/ Mentor, OH 44060-4101 | >\____/ \______________/ +1 216 974 9210 | >cbatt!cwruecmp!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery%case.CSNET@relay.CS.NET BALLBERY > (UUCP) (CSNET/Internet) (MCIMail) Out of place? Yes. Some might even say `aXcessive.' :-) Your shuttle one was also cute the first couple of times but now is wearing a bit thin. Can we have a new one now? -- John Sambrook Work: (206) 545-7433 University of Washington WD-12 Home: (206) 487-0180 Seattle, Washington 98195 UUCP: uw-beaver!uw-nsr!john
faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (04/13/87)
In article <7874@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) says
that you can fit quite a lot in four lines. I agree (although 5
would make my life easier). With judicious editing, I was able to
fit the following into my signature:
o name
o company name (and logo :-), although UNiSYS makes it easy)
o work address
o work phone
o home address
o uucp address
o arpa address
and I do have room for a title or a quote (I've chosen neither).
4 lines probably is sufficient.
--
Daniel P. Faigin
W: UNiSYS/DS/SDG;2525 Colorado MD 91-01;Santa Monica CA 90406;213/829-7511x6393
H: 8333 Columbus Avenue #17; Sepulveda CA 91343
Email: (uucp) faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (arpa) faigin%sdcrdcf.UUCP@JOVE.CAM.Unisys.COMdhb@rayssd.RAY.COM (David H. Brierley) (04/16/87)
In article <12703@vuwcomp.UUCP> newbery@vuwcomp.UUCP (Michael Newbery) writes: >Why not a character limit, say 256? This is actually less than four 80 >character lines but allows more flexibility in my opinion. The aim of the >.signature restriction is to save bytes is it not? I agree with this and also with a comment that Rick Adams made in another article. The network is an anarchy: if you dont like the way the distributed software works, change it! I changed the software at my site to check for a maximum number of characters instead of lines based on the fact that it doesnt cost any more to transmit a carriage return than any other character so why limit you to four carriage returns. On a related topic, I also changed the software to look for a file called .signature.xxxx where xxxx is the distribution, instead of just looking for .signature. This allows people to have a .signature.local file, a .signature.comp, or any other distribution they want. If the file doesn't exist, the program defaults to reading the old .signature file. Going back to Ricks comments, I like the anarchy of the current system. I like being able to say "I dont like the way this program works" and then being able to go in and change it. We have quite a few vendor-supplied programs on the various machines that I support and I always get pissed off when one of them doesn't work the way it should (or the way I want it to) and there is nothing I can do about it. I like to look at the distributed news software as a "model" which is never really finished. -- David H. Brierley Raytheon Submarine Signal Division 1847 West Main Road Portsmouth, RI 02871 Phone: (401)-847-8000 x4073 Internet: dhb@rayssd.ray.com Uucp: {cbosgd, gatech, linus, mirror, necntc, uiucdcs} !rayssd!dhb