packer@chrpserv.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) (01/05/90)
The various network etiquette guides suggest that long signature files--more than a name and address--are bad manners. In the newsgroups that are supposedly devoted to serious topics, they are highly distracting when they have some aphorism, even if it's only three or four words. I'm amazed that anyone who has obviously spent time composing some well written statement would junk it up at the end with anything beyond his name. When was the last time you saw a brand new BMW adorned with bumper stickers? Even an organization name is a distraction. Maybe people who do this are the kind who can read while watching TV. (This posting is obviously not a "question", but I can't find any better newsgroup for it.)
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (01/06/90)
Signatures are a matter of personal preference. They can convey useful
information (return addresses in the official header lines can get badly
mangled), express personality, or all of the above. The net would
surely be a poorer place if some drab Iron Curtain ethic forbade silly
signatures.
Some posters feel no need for a signature. This is great, but the
appropriate response is to post as one likes best -- not to try to make
others conform to one's own style.
It is an important courtesy to keep signatures to four lines or less,
however -- virtually everyone agrees that wasting lots of bandwidth on
.sig lines is annoying.
Users who like having a signature but get tired of posting the same one
every time, might consider using a script to pick one at random.
Various tools for this have been posted to source newsgroups; it's also
a fun exercise in { shell, C, perl, awk, etc } programming to write
one's own.
--
There's nothing wrong with Southern California that a || Tom Neff
rise in the ocean level wouldn't cure. -- Ross MacDonald || tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET6600pete@hub.UUCP (01/06/90)
From article <15068@bfmny0.UU.NET>, by tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff): > It is an important courtesy to keep signatures to four lines or less, > however -- virtually everyone agrees that wasting lots of bandwidth on > ..sig lines is annoying. Newsfeeds that run via modem over telco lines are obviously affected by long .sigs because a huge volume of them are posted every day. But here's something I've always wondered about: why should the various full-time international nets care about bandwidth? Leased phone lines are rented by time, right? Satellites orbit whether they're used or not. Microwave dishes aren't going anywhere. So does volume really count on the InterNet? What's the scoop? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pete Gontier | InterNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu, BitNet: 6600pete@ucsbuxa Editor, Macker | Online Macintosh Programming Journal; mail for subscription Hire this kid | Mac, DOS, C, Pascal, asm, excellent communication skills
packer@chrpserv.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) (01/06/90)
In my criticsm of signature pithy sayings, I should have emphasized more strongly that I'm against them in those groups devoted to serious topics such as talk.political.theory. It's dismaying to see a skillful writer carelessly allow the system to append a bit of fluff he probably dreamed up while browsing in soc.singles. In soc.singles, however, it would be great stuff.
tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (01/06/90)
In <662@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@chrpserv.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer): > In my criticsm of signature pithy sayings, I should have emphasized > more strongly that I'm against them in those groups devoted to > serious topics such as talk.political.theory. It's dismaying to see > a skillful writer carelessly allow the system to append a bit of > fluff he probably dreamed up while browsing in soc.singles. I agree very much with this sentiment. It is irritating to get to the end of a posting and see as part of the automatically added .signature: "Disclaimer: No one agrees with my opinions anyway." or "My company would never let someone as insane as me speak for them." or "I'm not awake enough to know what I'm talking about." Whether it seemed to be a well-reasoned argument or just a hot-headed flame the end result is that I wonder why the person bothered posting if he's just going to let his own tag line indicate that his article was bullshit. Maybe it's some odd form of mock-humility or perhaps a pathetic attempt at having an escape route in case the material presented is indeed of minority opinion or lacking in factual truth. On the occasional article, consciously added because the poster hasn't slept in seventy-two hours or whatever, it would make sense. When it appears on every article, it just serves to paint a negative image of the person it represents, both for his own self-confidence and how much stock we should actually put in what he says. > In soc.singles, however, it would be great stuff. That is certainly a debatable point. Dave -- (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (01/06/90)
Sometimes disclaimers can look silly, but when the author is posting from a corporate or institutional site -- SOME of whose posters and postings may in fact represent 'real' policy and be stuff the institution can be held accountable for -- it's often thought important for private, "recreational" posting to be dissociated from policy. It may not even be a decision the individual poster made -- the company or institution may have said so. Naturally as disclaimers became more prevalent we started parodizing them, because we parodize everything on this net. Vive la difference. My own opinion is that if you can't stand an article because of its signature, you need to read netnews a bit more -- or a bit less! But it would be nice if posters could easily vary their choice of whether and which signature to use depending on the context. In rn, you could do this by hacking Pnews, though I haven't. (Rn users note: If you copy Pnews to your own local 'bin' directory which appears early in your PATH, you can play around at will without affecting others. Just be careful.) It would be best of all if users took the time to READ their own postings after submitting them! I can't believe half of the bloopers that get sent out would survive if the authors saw their own handiwork... -- "DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT blow the hatch!" /)\ Tom Neff "Roger....hatch blown!" \(/ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (01/07/90)
A line or two giving various addresses is useful and not too distracting. A quote is fine if it matches the tone of the article and content of the newsgroup closely enough. On the other hand, a randomly generated fortune is sheer waste. ---Dan
eps@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (01/07/90)
In article <15070@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >Sometimes disclaimers can look silly, but when the author is posting >from a corporate or institutional site -- SOME of whose posters and >postings may in fact represent 'real' policy and be stuff the >institution can be held accountable for -- it's often thought >important for private, "recreational" posting to be dissociated from >policy. It may not even be a decision the individual poster made -- the >company or institution may have said so. It's generally understood that there's an implied disclaimer except in places like comp.newprod, or in certain "official responses" to questions posed in technical groups. -=EPS=- -- Opinions are the author's own, and do not necessarily represent those of San Francisco State University, its faculty, staff, or students, the Trustees of the California State University, or the State of California. (There's no more room for *my* .signature!)
darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) (01/08/90)
In article <2241@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >A line or two giving various addresses is useful and not too distracting. >A quote is fine if it matches the tone of the article and content of the >newsgroup closely enough. On the other hand, a randomly generated fortune >is sheer waste. > >---Dan One thing I like about .signature lines is that I can see who wrote something *after* I have read the article and have decided whether I care who wrote it. I also like to know where someone is from sometimes (E.G: For sale articles) and this information is not always available otherwise. (I made sure it was part of my Organization line.) Again this information is nice when found at the end of the article. One thing I don't like is signature lines that are extremely long. I don't so much mind lots of text in a few lines (although some of those can give you a headache) but some go on for line after line with 1 or 2 characters on each line. In some cases I like to know where the poster is writing from. Have you ever read a for sale article and wanted to know where in the world the item was? granted the poster should supply this information but often doesn't. An item may interest you if it is local but not across the -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid) | Thank goodness we don't get all D'Arcy Cain Consulting | the government we pay for. West Hill, Ontario, Canada | No disclaimers. I agree with me |
karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) (01/09/90)
I find that it often makes my life simpler when the author of
an article includes one or two email addresses. As another
poster wrote, headers occasionally are the source of
disinformation. And, I am my own "smart mailer," so I
have always appreciated a head start (viable address) in
getting my email out. Our new uunet account has definitely
facilitated email. I always include my uunet address when
I email or post, to let people know I have an account there,
plus a local address, for Bay Area folks.
I like the signoffs that have something to say, whether it be
serious or wry and humorous. I find them entertaining and
sometimes thought-provoking, and I generally get a feeling for
the personality and HQ (humor quotient) of the poster.
To me, signoffs are part of the unique, freewheeling atmosphere
of usenet. They *belong*. I must think so; I use one.
Karen
--
Karen Valentino <> Everex North (Everex Systems) <> Sebastopol, CA
..uunet!everexn!karen ..{apple, well}!fico2!everexn!karen
"I don't care what people think! I just care about my reputation!"
Grant Linowitzmagnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson) (01/10/90)
I think the people who are offended by other people's signatures should consider that each medium of communication has its own rules, written or unwritten. If you write an article in a newspaper, you sign it with your name, nothing more. It would certainly look very strange if you added some totally irrelevant quote of purportedly humorus nature. However, on Usenet this is the accepted way of signing your articles! OK, the written guidelines recommend that your signature shouldn't be more than four lines long, but many people have far longer signatures, and their readers seem to accept this, anyway it's very seldom someone complains about it. You may find it disturbing if a serious and well-written article on a serious subject ends with a joke, a frivolous (or just irrelevant) quote or even a disclaimer. In that case, try to think of the joke (or whatever it is) as something that is *not* a part of the article, just as all those lines about "Message-ID" and so on at the top of the page aren't part of the message. Do you get equally angry if there is a silly advertisment next to an serious newspaper article about AIDS or some other serious subject? Probably not, because you're used to it. Try to get similarly used to the specific ways of the sub-culture that is called Usenet! Also remember that some organizations *force* their employees to add a disclaimer to everything they write "privately" using the organization's mail address. And don't forget the historical precedent: Cato major (i think) who ended *all* his speeches in the Roman Senate by demanding the destruction of Carthage! Personally, I think you *should* add a (reasonably short) signature to all serious articles for the following reasons: If somebody signs his article just "John Smith", he is hard to distinguish from all the other 35,763 John Smiths on the net. (His mail address is not much help if it's something like "john@xx.yyy.zzz.edu") On the other hand, if he uses a distinctive signature, readers will instantly recognize it: "Aha, it's *that* John Smith". The signature is a place where one can show a little creativity and personalize one's messages. After all, one Usenet message looks very much like another! This, of course, applies mostly to the shorter messages (of a few lines or so) that are too short for personal writing style to show through. The return address shown in the article header is often a, say, UUCP address, which isn't of much use if you only have bitnet access. The signature is a good place to put alternative addresses. (How many articles of the type "I tried to mail the author of article <XXXX> but the mail bounced, so I'll post it here instead" have we seen? How much net.bandwidth has been wasted that way?) Finally, I'd like to say that of course you shouldn't overdo it. Adding a thirty-line signature to a two-line message is, indeed, pure waste of bandwidth, and tends to irritate even me. (But, still, the most efficient way there is of wasting bandwidth is to write and flame other people for wasting bandwidth). I'm probably going to be thoroughly flamed for this, but I'll survive (hopefully). Magnus Olsson | \e+ /_ Dept. of Theoretical Physics | \ Z / q University of Lund, Sweden | >----< Internet: magnus@thep.lu.se | / \===== g Bitnet: THEPMO@SELDC52 | /e- \q P.S. I hope the net.gods can forgive me for having a *five* line signature, but I couldn't fit the Feynman diagram into four lines. Anyway, I've deleted the frame and the stupid quote, which saves *five* entire lines of 60 characters. Wow! That's 300 entire bytes of net.bandwidth saved!
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (01/10/90)
In article <3487@hub.UUCP> 6600pete@hub.UUCP writes: >Newsfeeds that run via modem over telco lines are obviously affected >by long .sigs because a huge volume of them are posted every day. > >But here's something I've always wondered about: why should the various >full-time international nets care about bandwidth? Unless the international nets have figured out a way to make sure only they have to carry the long sigs, while the telco folks are immune, I don't see what difference this makes. -- 'The Nazis have no sense of humor, so why -| Tom Neff should they want television?' -- Phil Dick |- tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
zecca@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Mad Bob the Avenger) (01/10/90)
I don't find SMALL signature files distracting at all. As others have
said, they are useful to convey information about mailing addresses,
to show a disclaimer (needed in some cases, but most of the ones I see
ARE worthless), or to show a little about your personality (like mine).
What I can't stand are those 10+ line signatures I often see. My account
limits my .signature to 4 lines. Anything past the 4th does not get sent
out to the newsnet. I think it would be beneficial if ALL machines had
this sort of restriction. This way, we would not have Iron Curtain
censorship, but signatures would not clutter otherwise useful articles.
>---> Mad Bob the Avenger [zecca@tramp.colorado.EDU, home of junk.mail]
[ "I'm a doctor, not a rapper." -- McCoy, "The Enterprise Rap" ]
[ "This room will self-destruct in five seconds..." -- Russell Acker ]
[ "You said you would kill me!" -- Maltz (John Larroquette), ST3:TSFS ]jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) (01/10/90)
zecca@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Mad Bob the Avenger) writes: > I don't find SMALL signature files distracting at all. As others have > said, they are useful to convey information about mailing addresses, > to show a disclaimer (needed in some cases, but most of the ones I see > ARE worthless), or to show a little about your personality (like mine). > What I can't stand are those 10+ line signatures I often see. My account > limits my .signature to 4 lines. Anything past the 4th does not get sent > out to the newsnet. I think it would be beneficial if ALL machines had > this sort of restriction. This way, we would not have Iron Curtain > censorship, but signatures would not clutter otherwise useful articles. First, let me say that i do *not* find long .sigs distracting. I simply stop reading once i have reached the end of the text. Luckily, i can fit more than 20 lines on a screen, so i can see if there is more text after the .sig without actually reading it (assuming i don't want to). Second, i find .sigs to be interesting. Forcing people to use 4 lines can keep them from expressing something they have to say which might be beneficial to you. Third, let me say that while *you* like 4 line sigs, not everybody does. I've seen some 4 line sigs that are a complete waste of space, but i don't think we should ban them all. Different strokes for different folks. If you want to limit yourself (or in your case, Mad Bob, are limited by your account) thats fine. Sometimes i *like* to send 20 line sigs (which don't usually seem to pertain to the discussion at hand when other people read them, though they do to me). Other times i like to send a 2 or 3 line sig, cuz i just don't have anything to say that is worth my time to make up. Finally, let me say that i can't see how sigs can clutter up articles any more than headers do. I like to have lots of info included in the messages i recieve, thus i like lots of headers - the more the merrier. However, when i don't need the headers, i *cut them out*. Why can't the same be done for sigs? > >---> Mad Bob the Avenger [zecca@tramp.colorado.EDU, home of junk.mail] > [ "I'm a doctor, not a rapper." -- McCoy, "The Enterprise Rap" ] > [ "This room will self-destruct in five seconds..." -- Russell Acker ] > [ "You said you would kill me!" -- Maltz (John Larroquette), ST3:TSFS ] - iain "Hi-Ho Electric-Blue! .... Um...Ranger's on a bum trip again..."
unccab@calico.med.unc.edu (Charles Balan) (01/11/90)
In article <1990Jan8.230858.7215@everexn.uucp> karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) writes: [Much logical thought deleted, not because I disagree, but because I need to cut down the lines so that I may respond :-] >I like the signoffs that have something to say, whether it be >serious or wry and humorous. I find them entertaining and >the personality and HQ (humor quotient) of the poster. I must agree with Karen (again (; when I read a posting, the .sig usually tells me much about the poster, i.e. "this poster reads Voltaire, ergo this poster has an unusually brilliant mind and keen insight," or "this poster is from the island of Bali-Hai ergo said poster may not understand the intricacies of the subject of dog-sledding" etc. When I read the .sig, it actually sheds much light on the article posted. However, I truly have a pet peeve with those who quote an ENTIRE article just to respond "I agree/disagree, you moron." Usually, IMOSHO, much of what is quoted from previous poster isn't necessary. I know, since I also usually quote too much. I suppose my .sig says it all. Charles Balan UNCCAB@med.unc.edu , UNCCAB@uncmed.uucp , UNCCAB@unc.bitnet %%%%%%%%%%%%% A Witty Saying Proves Nothing - Voltaire %%%%%%%%%%%%
spt@waikato.ac.nz (Simon Travaglia) (01/11/90)
In article <B=K*~-@rpi.edu> tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: > >I agree very much with this sentiment. It is irritating to get to the >end of a posting and see as part of the automatically added .signature: >.... Surely what someone adds to their message is up to them? If someone wished to protect themselves from the wrath of their employer (or protect their employer..) they should add a disclaimer, and surely the way and means they do that is up to them. Otherwise we may as well just say "Standard Disclaimer" at the end of our messages, meaning something like: "The thoughts expressed in this document are my own and are not an indication of the feelings of my employer, employees, boss, corperation, state, country, ethnic/sociological/religous/sexual/peer group, although some of them may share all or some of my views. Furthermore, these opinions are backed by some of the best education that the schools {xxx, xxx, xxx} could provide me in the {nn} years it took to educate me to my current mental state." Whatever, I quite like some of the signatures that come across. -- ^^__/@@@@@\ +------------------------------------------------------------+ @OO@_@@@@@@@B- |Sheep rights and liberty!! Simon Travaglia, Waikato Uni, NZ| \/ \@@@@@/ |spt@truth.waikato.ac.nz- 130.217.64.3 +---------------------+ baa! || || |spt@grace.waikato.ac.nz- 130.217.64.32|Take it easy in there|
wisner@hayes.fai.alaska.edu (Bill Wisner) (01/11/90)
karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) writes: >I like the signoffs that have something to say, whether it be >serious or wry and humorous. I find them entertaining and >sometimes thought-provoking, and I generally get a feeling for >the personality and HQ (humor quotient) of the poster. So, you can't get a feeling for those things from the body of the article?
tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (01/12/90)
In article <B=K*~-@rpi.edu> tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: >I agree very much with this sentiment. It is irritating to get to the >end of a posting and see as part of the automatically added .signature: In <1990Jan11.040733.405@waikato.ac.nz> spt@waikato.ac.nz (Simon Travaglia): > Surely what someone adds to their message is up to them? Of course it is; by automatically, I did not mean some random thing they have no control over. I was referring to the posting agent appending it for them. Also, "irritating" was the wrong word for me to use. Several people seem to be of the notion that it sets me frothing at the mouth or puts a dark cloud over my desk. I didn't quite mean that, but rather the way I find many commercials irritating. They don't make me feel bad at all, in fact sometimes they give me an extra laugh because of their inherent stupidity. It's the same thing with some instances of .signatures. > Otherwise we may as well just say "Standard Disclaimer" at the end of our > messages, meaning something like: [deleted] We might as well just not include anything about disclaimers. Read news.announce.newusers. Here, I'll save just a little bit of effort for looking this one up in "Rules for posting to Usenet": All opinions or statements made in messages posted to Usenet should be taken as the opinions of the person who wrote the message. They do not necessarily represent the opinions of the employer of that person, the owner of the computer from which the message was posted, or anyone involved with Usenet or the underlying networks of which Usenet is made up. All responsibility for statements made in Usenet messages rests with the individual posting the message. So basically the messages already all carry the disclaimer you want except reference to an individual's education, which seems like a really bozotic thing to put in your .signature anyway. Some employers still do require a disclaimer and I don't know what their precise policy is regarding them. I suspect they don't mean the "I don't know what I'm talking about anyway" ones. I've not seen anyone here complain about a clear disclaimer which says, "I speak for myself, not my employer." > Whatever, I quite like some of the signatures that come across. So do I. In fact, I like the ones that I come across of 8+ lines so much that I repost them locally and mail them back to the person responsible with the following appended: Please consider trimming this to four lines or less. The newsgroup news.announce.newusers has articles posted to it on a regular (roughly monthly) basis which include information on why this is a good thing. It will quite possibly save you some flames, too. -- (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))