jef@unisoft.uucp (Jef Poskanzer) (07/28/87)
I've noticed the following ordinary-looking, obnoxiously large signature
showing up on various newsgroups lately:
....................................................................... . # Dave Fiske . . # UUCP Path: ihnp4!philabs!nyfca1!brspyr1!davef . . ### ### ### .
. # # # BRS Information Technologies . . ### ### ### (518)783-1161 . .Information # # .
.Technologies # ### . .......................................................................
But what I didn't realize at first is that it's only three lines long!
Of course, the first "line" has 311 characters in it... I only noticed
this because it caused the Software Tools version of sedit to access-violate
itself.
Dave deserves some congratulations (in advance?) for discovering this
hack. I place the 4-line signature and the 50% rule in the same moral
category as copy-protection. Although I detest long signatures, and
over-quoting, AND software pirating, THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.
---
Jef
Jef Poskanzer unisoft!jef@ucbvax.Berkeley.Edu ...ucbvax!unisoft!jef
"Good day."roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (07/29/87)
In article <479@unisoft.UUCP> jef@unisoft.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) writes: > I've noticed the following ordinary-looking, obnoxiously large signature > showing up on various newsgroups lately: [...] But what I didn't realize > at first is that it's only three lines long! Of course, the first "line" > has 311 characters in it... I love it! :-) First "inews fodder" to get (the wrong way) around the 50% rule, then 311 character lines to get around the 4 line signature rule. What will people think of next? I once had a roommate who used to say "you can't make things fool-proof, only fool-resistant". Seems apropos here. -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
henry@garp.mit.edu (Henry Mensch) (07/29/87)
The sad, pathetic truth is that if those who put significant time and
thought into things like beating the four-line signature and fooling
inews would put that time into the substance of their postings, the
restrictions on included text and .signature size probably wouldn't be
necessary.
# Henry Mensch / <henry@garp.mit.edu> / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA
# {ames,cca,rochester,harvard,mit-eddie}!garp!henryleonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (07/30/87)
This technique assumes that the reader is using an 80 column terminal. I normally have this terminal set for 132 col for editing. I don't bother changing it for rn. So that long signature is so much junk to me! -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'. You know... I'd rather be a hacker."
beede@hubcap.UUCP (Mike Beede) (07/30/87)
And since no one's mentioned it in a month or so, how about a
futile attempt to shame the huge .signature nerds? We could
collect the most obnoxious/longest/most overexposed signatures
and post awards (much like the obfuscated C contest).
Nah, most of them would just add a line mentioning the
honor at the end of their signatures . . . ;->
--
Mike Beede
Computer Science Dept. UUCP: . . . !hubcap!beede
Clemson University INET: beede@hubcap.clemson.edu
Clemson SC 29634-1906 YOUR DIME: (803)656-{2845,3444}dhb@rayssd.RAY.COM (David H. Brierley) (07/30/87)
In reply to the article talking about the "great way" to override the
line limit for the signature file.
It wont work at my site! I changed the code in inews to enforce a 320
character limit instead of a 4 line limit. I didn't go completely
wild with it however, it still only allows either 6 or 8 lines (I forget
which). My reasoning was that I agreed with wanting to keep the
signature short but it's character you pay for, not carriage returns.
--
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!dhbjef@unisoft.uucp (Jef Poskanzer) (07/30/87)
In the referenced article, henry@garp.UUCP (Henry Mensch) wrote: >The sad, pathetic truth is that if those who put significant time and >thought into things like beating the four-line signature and fooling >inews would put that time into the substance of their postings, the >restrictions on included text and .signature size probably wouldn't be >necessary. The sad, pathetic truth is that if those who put significant time and effort (but insignificant thought) into the 50% rule and the four-line signature rule had instead put that time into implementing workable solutions to the problems, then the obnoxious workarounds would not be necessary. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer unisoft!jef@ucbvax.Berkeley.Edu ...ucbvax!unisoft!jef "18. I am anxious in rooms that have hairy walls." Disclaimer: This disclaimer is the official company policy of UniSoft Systems.
kyle@xanth.UUCP (Kyle Jones) (07/31/87)
> The sad, pathetic truth is that if those who put significant time and > effort (but insignificant thought) into the 50% rule and the four-line > signature rule had instead put that time into implementing workable > solutions to the problems, then the obnoxious workarounds would not > be necessary. The USENET News software is distributed with complete sources. If you don't like something in it, fix it. After all, you didn't pay one red cent for this software. How about giving a little something back? Instead of railing vituperative, outline and implement some "workable solutions" to the problems that the 4-line .signature and 50%-inclusion heuristics address. But before you begin, take a look at the statistics posted in news.lists. Consider the costs incurred to sites all over the world by the posting of a single news article. Consider the audience to which a typical news article is presented. Consider how EASY it is to post such an article. Now do the 4-line .signature and 50%-inclusion heuristics seem so extreme, in light of the above data? Given the number of people who will read a typical news article, don't you think that having simple heuristics that cause people to sit back and take another look at their articles before posting is desirable?
merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (David S. Hayes) (07/31/87)
(setf *flame-level* :medium)
(send self :asbestos-suit t)
After telling us how sad and pathetic it is that people don't put
in any effort to cure the problems of included text and bozo
signatures, Jef then includes his own 5-line signature. What's in
it?
Line 1: "Jef"
Very informative. I suppose he thinks the rest of the
world is too dumb to read the header lines?
Line 2: NULL
Just as informative as line 1. Better, though, 'cause
he takes up fewer characters with it.
Line 3: Addressing information
The only useful line in the whole mess.
Line 4: Stupid quote of the day.
You really needed to waste my time, money, and net
bandwidth to send this, didn't you?
Line 5: Stupid disclaimer.
Does your employer know you leave your brains in
the parking lot? See line 4.
Insert some quote about people living in glass houses. Why don't
*you*, Jef, do something? I haven't seen you posting any patches
to inews to correct the problems you lament. Nor have I heard
any suggestions for better solutions than the current plan.
These rules (50% and 4-line sig) are necessary. Inews/Postnews
are an enforcement mechanism, but the rules will not go away.
Perhaps you would find them less obnoxious if you inserted some
consideration into your postings.
--
David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon PhoneNet: (202) 694-6900
UUCP: *!seismo!sundc!hqda-ai!merlin ARPA: merlin%hqda-ai@seismo.css.govtim@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Tim Northrup) (08/03/87)
Time for a little defense of Dave Fiske (who seems to have inadvertently started this debate), from the site admin for BRSPYR1 (being me!): In a referenced article, henry@garp.UUCP (Henry Mensch) wrote: >The sad, pathetic truth is that if those who put significant time and >thought into things like beating the four-line signature and fooling >inews would put that time into the substance of their postings, the >restrictions on included text and .signature size probably wouldn't be >necessary. Dave's postings seem to be isolated to 3 newsgroups: rec.humor, rec.arts.tv and talk.bizarre -- you think some extra time and thought is required for these postings??? For rec.arts.tv, you *might* have a point but for the others you have got to be kidding. If you think the signature is a waste of bandwidth, then you haven't read the articles in these groups very much. As far as spending "significant time and thought" on this, I doubt it took him long at all (previous signatures of his have been long, using a backspace to back over previous characters which was fine unless your news-reader output backspaces as ^H). He has since changed his .signature (several times, probably) to something a bit shorter. I did not, and have no intention of, "shaming" Dave for his use of the .signature (as one poster has suggested), or asking him to refrain from doing pretty much what he likes with it (within the confines of good taste, of course). If he starts posting to any of the news or comp newsgroups however, I will think about it, but postings in rec.* and talk.* are fair game, as far as I am concerned. -- Tim "The Enchanter" Northrup / tim@brspyr1.BRS.Com "How do you know so much about swallows?"
rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) (08/05/87)
In article <485@unisoft.UUCP>, jef@unisoft.uucp (Jef Poskanzer) writes: > > The sad, pathetic truth is that if those who put significant time and > effort (but insignificant thought) into the 50% rule and the four-line > signature rule had instead put that time into implementing workable > solutions to the problems, then the obnoxious workarounds would not > be necessary. The real truth is that the 50% rule took about 15 minutes to implement including compiling and testing. It works well in almost every case. I seriously doubt that a better solution could have been worked out in that time. The point you miss is that it is supposed to make you think about it. (Remember, you get the source, so you can remove the restriction if you want. You just have to make an effort). The 50% rule is there to slow down people who make long replies without thinking about it. In that respect, it is an unqualified success. ---rick
cas@mtuxo.UUCP (C.STEVENS) (08/06/87)
In article <44046@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV>, rick@seismo.UUCP writes: > The real truth is that the 50% rule took about 15 minutes to implement > including compiling and testing. It works well in almost every case. I imagine we've wasted more bits and bandwidth talking about these d*mnn things, than they've saved us, so let's *STOP*! ____________ The handsome guy in the wheelchair! Cliff Stevens Jr. rm. MT 1E228 ...!ihnp4!mtdcb!cas AT&T -- End User Organization Laurel Ave. ...!inuxc!mtuxo!cas Middletown NJ 07748
garyp@cognos.uucp (Gary Puckering) (08/07/87)
In article <2825@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: *----- | I love it! :-) First "inews fodder" to get (the wrong way) around |the 50% rule, then 311 character lines to get around the 4 line signature |rule. What will people think of next? I once had a roommate who used to |say "you can't make things fool-proof, only fool-resistant". Seems apropos |here. *----- Or, to put it another way: "Nothing is ever foolproof because fools are so ingenious" -- Gary Puckering 3755 Riverside Dr. Cognos Incorporated Ottawa, Ontario {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,linus,pyramid} (613) 738-1440 CANADA K1G 3N3 !utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!garyp
jef@unisoft.uucp (Jef Poskanzer) (08/07/87)
I found it amusing and interesting to see all the mis-interpretations
of my message. By my count, there were fifteen responses, and only ONE
(Roy Smith) understood what I was talking about. In paricular, three
people (Rich Salz, Kyle Jones, and Rick Adams) mis-interpreted me in
the same way: they thought I was complaining about the inconvenience
to me personally in circumventing the posting restrictions. All three
suggested that since I have the source, I simply edit it and remove the
restrictions. This is an example of a syndrome I've noticed on Usenet
before: inappropriate knee-jerk response. This is a Semantic Bozoism,
and somewhat harder to combat than the usual Syntactic Bozoisms.
"You've got the source" is the correct response to a large class of
complaints in this area, and so if you don't feel like thinking too much,
it's easy to mis-read the complaint and decide it fits the canned response.
Here are some reasons why the response is inappropriate in this case:
1) I do NOT have the source, and don't particularly want it. We are
still running News 2.10.3 here, and have no plans to switch.
2) If we were running 2.11, I could not simply edit out the restrictions
since I am not the news admin at this site.
3) However, if our news admin decided to install 2.11 and leave the
restrictions in, it would not affect me in the slightest. I do not
over-quote articles, and I do not have a .signature (if you'd been
paying attention you'd know this).
No, the problem I was complaining about is caused by bozos at other
sites posting stuff that I have to wade through. I could edit news
source all day and the problem would still be there.
What's ironic is that this is exactly the same type of problem that
the restrictions were *intended* to fix. But because they were
implemented without thought, they have caused at least as much bozosity
as they have prevented. Yes, they have prevented some over-quoting
and some over-long .signatures. Yes, they are trivial to get around
if you really need to get around them. The problem is that there are
multiple ways to get around them, some of which are obnoxious. For
the 50% rule, the "correct" ways around the rule are to edit down the
quotation or to change the quoting character; the obnoxious way is
"inews fodder". For the 4-line rule, the "correct" ways are to shrink
your .signature down to four lines, or to include it before posting as
I do; one obnoxious way is the original subject of this series of
articles.
Now, what should be done instead: I have two suggestions. One, easy
and heuristic: make sure people know about the "correct" way around
the rules. The code that detects a transgression should reject
the article and put out a message like this:
You article is being rejected because your .signature file
is too long. Four lines or 320 characters is considered by
the network community to be the maximum reasonable size.
If you can edit your .signature down to that size, you are
welcome to re-submit your article. However, if you absolutely
must waste network bandwidth and bore thousands of people with
your over-long signature, all you have to do is include it
manually before posting. People all over the world will
know you are a bozo, but if that's what you want...
The equivalent message for the 50% rule is left as an exercise.
My second suggestion, which I like better, may be harder to implement.
When a transgression is found, put out a message explaining the
rule, and then ask the user whether he/she wants to violate the
rule. If the answer is yes, ask again. And possibly a third time,
depending on a random number. Then, if the user is adamant, go ahead
and post the article.
As for the asshole David S. Hayes, who had the nerve to complain
about my signature: today's quote is just for you.
---
Bozo the Clown
Jef Poskanzer unisoft!jef@ucbvax.Berkeley.Edu ...ucbvax!unisoft!jef
"But then, I reflected, the best words are often those left unsaid."
[Here's the disclaimer that my company insists I use. If you have any
complaints about wasted network bandwidth, send them to unisoft!donal.]
"The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of UniSoft Corp, its staff, or its management."brown@nicmad.UUCP (Mr. Video) (08/09/87)
In article <495@unisoft.UUCP> jef@unisoft.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) writes:
<The equivalent message for the 50% rule is left as an exercise.
The 50% rule was the easiest thing to get around. I'm sure that many
people figured this one out right away. It is made even simpler when using
the newsreader: rn
--
harvard-\ ihnp4--\
Mr. Video seismo!uwvax.......!nicmad!brown
rutgers-/ decvax--/
terminus-/ BITNET: brown%nicmad.UUCP@spool.wisc.edu