Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!nsc!chuqui From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: Signature files, ORGANIZATION etc. It's not reading it that bothers me, it's paying for it Message-ID: <2499@nsc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 21-Mar-85 02:58:25 EST Article-I.D.: nsc.2499 Posted: Thu Mar 21 02:58:25 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 22-Mar-85 02:03:39 EST References: <2478@nsc.UUCP> <253@looking.UUCP> Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Organization: The Village Lines: 77 Summary: In article <253@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >As for Organization. This was granted the high-cost status of a header line >to remove the confusion about who and where a poster is. Since people move >around, it was put in an environment variable so users could post from a >place that is unusal for them and still have the right organization. I >would like to thank all the people who have been kind enough to inform me >that they are in "The Warlock's Cave" or in "Plaid Heaven." That feature is >not there for the poster, it's there for the reader. Please remember that. Since Brad (not so) concidentally use two of my previous organizations as examples (but left out my current one, I might add...) I think I ought to explain the rationale for the organizations I use and signatures. Organizations: One very good reason for me to use an organization line different than 'National Semiconductor, Santa Clara' {the default for my site} is simply that in many cases, while National is supportive of what I do on the net, I am not specifically speaking as a representative of National. 'Chuq Von Rospach, National Semiconductor' brings forward a much more official position than 'chuq von rospach, the warlocks cave'. There ARE times when I am speaking from the companies viewpoint, and if I wasn't so lazy I probably should change the organization line or something, but the places where I do act in that way are limited (sucgh as net.micro.16k). For me, this is a reasonable alternative to the growing tendency to put disclaimers all over the place-- they tend to be a couple to 6 lines long where they exist. Secondarily, I try to minimize the tendency of the network to depersonalize things, and this is a rather inexpensive (volume/cost/time/hassle) way of doing so-- the organization says something about me, more or less... Signatures: For once I'll agree with Brad. Signatures are out of control. Mailing addresses, LARGE return addresses, etc... are annoying at best. pictures and other cutesies, especially static cutsies, are a pain. disclaimers are an unfortunate necessity (hmm, how about a new header line, Disclaimer: so we can turn it off in rn? *grin*) (double hmm, how about a header line for signatures and get them out of the message body? *grin?*). If you look at my signature (at the end of the article) you will see the following fields: . who I am (chuq von rospach, national semiconductor) . how to find me (both uucp and arpa, total of six backbone returns) . a blank line . a 'quote of the week' total cost, depending on quote, 4 lines minimum, 6 lines maximum because I am very careful to keep the quote of the week short. total char costs is less than 500 chars worst case, currently 130 chars. this signature does everything you need a signature to do except disclaim. With the enclosed return address, you can get to me from almost anywhere in about 4 hops, and EVERYONE should be able to find one of those backbones (if only ihnp4....). I have seen signatures recently moving towards 15 lines, which is outrageous. I won't mention names, but there are signatures coming out of places like fluke with return addresses that need pathalias to parse. You can argue (and some do) with my Quote of the week, of course-- I get occasional hate mail for it. I also get not so occasional comments, reference requests, congratulations, suggestions, submissions, and the like. Last time I counted, mail FOR these little depersonalization things was about 5 to 1 ahead the hate mail-- for once the people that like something did something other than stay silent, and I find that significant. I consider the single largest problem on Usenet to be that of depersonalization-- the tendency to forget that the other side of the terminal is human, too, and I do what I can to emphasize that. Signatures, since they are seen every time you post (sometimes, twice... *sigh*) need to be thought out VERY carefully. Unfortunately, there are those that don't. But signatures DO play a very useful role. chuq -- Chuq Von Rospach, National Semiconductor {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Be seeing you!