[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: signatures (was defontifying program)
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 90 19:33 EDT
From: RWK@FUJI.ILA.Dialnet.Symbolics.COM (Robert W. Kerns)
Thanks for the clarifications (I had just sorted it out empirically)
BTW: Somebody posted a request for us to include Signatures in our mail...
I absolutely refuse to add those silly signature lines to the end
of the messages, *AND I WISH EVERYONE ELSE WOULD STOP!*. They waste
space & time and aren't cute or funny any more. ...
Not to load the system with a discussion about how not to load the
system, but ...
Well, I think signature LINES is OK, even helpful, but the signature
PAGES typical on UseNet are most definitely obnoxious.
I'ld like to see at MOST 3 things in sig lines:
1) User's real name (unless in address)
2) Users real (prefered, cleanest form ...) email address. Useful when
mailing but not replying to someone. Mail passes through a number of
machines so a Brain dead mailer (that you've never seen or heard of) can
still garble your headers.
3) User's organization; I do know what ILA is but I dont many others
are and Dialnet addresses tend to be the most anonymous. I dont
think a person's affiliation affects their credibility, but often helps
to understand the context.
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Is that really so bad?
On the other hand, I usually *DO* refrain from using Symbolics text
styles in mail messages to the Slug list, because I'm well aware that
many Slug readers (not just a few) don't read their mail on a Lispm.
I agree, it does seem unnecessary for most purposes, although when
inserting code, I'm reluctant to strip it first.