Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!xanth!mcnc!rti!sas!jwd
From: jwd@sas.UUCP (John W. DeBoskey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: another nice one
Message-ID: <1338@sas.UUCP>
Date: 21 Nov 89 21:01:08 GMT
Reply-To: jwd@sas.UUCP (John W. DeBoskey)
Distribution: na
Organization: SAS Institute Inc, Cary NC
Lines: 32

In article <1894@psuhcx.psu.edu> wcf@psuhcx.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) writes:
>In article <20540@unix.cis.pitt.edu> yahoo@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Kenneth L Moore)
>writes:  |In article <11576@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>|>In article <20519@unix.cis.pitt.edu> yahoo@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Kenneth L
>Moore) writes:  

I sometimes am forced to wonder.

   Yes: His .sig definately let's someone know who sent the mail. You
        don't even have to read the name..
   No: It's not like everyone else's.

   However: The last 10 articles I've perused had .sigs varing
            from 4 to 11 lines. His is the smallest so far.

   Now think: News is compressed. How much bandwith is required to send
              a continuous stream of '@' chars, a few bytes of text,
              and then more '@' chars. Please include the 3 cr's
              also. I leave this as a problem to the reader. It costs
              less then sending the average 5 line sig with no repeating
              characters.

   Personally I think the guy has a bad attitude for MAYBE 1 of the
   postings he has made. So what is my opinion. But flaming him
   for a .sig is just plain silly in my viewpoint. It shows some
   people aren't thinking when they let their fingers do the
   typing(aka: disconnect brain, start typing).

                             John W. De Boskey

jwd%sas@rti.rti.org       (w)
jwd%baggins@mcnc.mcnc.org (h)