Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!schaut
From: schaut@madnix.UUCP (Rick Schaut)
Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions
Subject: Re: Signature files (LONG)
Message-ID: <793@madnix.UUCP>
Date: 21 Aug 89 14:49:29 GMT
References: <15046@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <549@buster.UUCP> <2689@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> <2182@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> <30744@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: schaut@madnix.UUCP (Rick Schaut)
Organization: ARP Software, Madison, WI
Lines: 29

In article <30744@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes:
>Article quoted in its entirety, something I don't do often:
>>Just out of curiosity, is there any reason why I should have a .sig at all?
>>It would just be a repeat of the Reply-To line I suppose.
>
>Somebody give the man a medal. Thank you.

For those of us who are out in UUCP land, the 'reply to' line is 
insufficient.  Some systems simply can't decode 'UUCP'.  Out of 
courtesy, then, I include more specific ways to reach me.  Also, I 
do some posting from a friend's account on another machine (madnix 
doesn't get all news groups), and at times the only way to tell who 
is doing the posting is by the .sig.  Also, when posting through my 
friend's account, I'd still like people to send mail to my account 
here.  I can edit the 'reply to' line, but then I'm faced with the
same problem I have here.

As for netiquette dictating four lines for a .sig, I view that as
a guideline.  The bottom line is the number of bytes that have to
be stored and transferred.  I'd rather see a seven line .sig without
the fancy boxes and extraneous characters than a four line .sig
with all the extra junk.  Say what you need to say; say it clearly;
and use as little space as possible.

-- 
   Richard Schaut
ArpaNet: madnix!schaut@cs.wisc.edu
UseNet: ...uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!schaut
             {decvax!att}!