Is this better? - was Hugh's long .sig

[Fritz Whittington]

On or about 2004-04-27 14:41, Chris Jones whipped out a trusty #2 pencil 
and scribbled:

> Chris Kloiber wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 19:06, Douglas Furlong wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 11:08, Hugh Foster wrote:
>>>   
>>>
>>>> In order to fit this list better, I have moved my subscription from my
>>>> servisair.com address to this, my home account, the software for which
>>>> can format mail dependent on where it's going. It will cost me, as I
>>>> have to dialup for this rather than use the LAN, but if it keeps the
>>>> peace, it's worth it.
>>>>
>>>> My apologies for the disruption.
>>>>     
>>>
>>> I think your sig here is okay, but do you really want to sign off 
>>> with an apology for disruption? ;)
>>>
>>> I think the main problem is not so much you, just the general attitude
>>> towards Sig's. It's fair (I think) to get upset when reading a list and
>>> having HUGE sigs put on every thing.
>>>
>>> Companies should really try to shorten them, and also have it so 
>>> that if
>>> posting to a world readable list, then at worst have a sig that just
>>> says this person does not represent the company in their opinion. As
>>> apposed to every thing else.
>>>
>>> I am currently resisting implementing signatures at my company until
>>> they come up with one that is not 500 lines long.
>>>
>>> Doug
>>>   
>>
>>
>> Let them come up with all the legaleese they want- on a web page linked
>> from a 1-2 line company sig, leaving the other 2-3 lines for the
>> employee. That way everybody is happy.
>>
>>  
>>
> My understanding is that any sig with more than 4 lines in it breaches 
> netiquette. Therefore my sig is 4 lines (or less).
>
> Also, as I was (forceably) reminded on a windoze MTA mailing list some 
> years ago, one should always place the characters "--  " on a line by 
> itself before the sig block - just so that mailing list software that 
> works properly can strip the entire sig block from incoming mail 
> before sending it out.
>
> Just my £0.02p worth....
>
And if you look at the message source, you will see that your .VCF 
attachment adds 18 additional lines (granted, some are pretty short).   
Are we worried about total bytes sent over the net or total lines 
displayed on the screen?  Or both?  Well, I think the answer is we used 
to be worried about both, when a 10 MB hard drive was the size of a 
small refrigerator and cost almost as much as a new car; and news/mail 
propagated from place to place mostly over dial-up phone lines at far 
less than 56 kbps. 

And I'm *not* saying you shouldn't attach a .VCF.  They are a good 
compromise between giving a lot of details some may want to see, while 
taking almost no screen space for those who don't choose to expand 
them.  The extra text in the message source is, of course, not really an 
issue in modern times. 



-- 
Fritz Whittington
It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that. (G. H. Hardy)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3497 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20040428/42613e51/attachment-0001.bin>