Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site bdmrrr.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!vrdxhq!rlgvax!bdmrrr!gates From: gates@bdmrrr.UUCP (Al Gates) Newsgroups: net.news,net.misc,net.flame Subject: Re: USENET frowning upon graphics in signatures Message-ID: <459@bdmrrr.UUCP> Date: Wed, 16-Oct-85 09:53:09 EDT Article-I.D.: bdmrrr.459 Posted: Wed Oct 16 09:53:09 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 19-Oct-85 06:31:15 EDT References: <491@scirtp.UUCP> <454@bdmrrr.UUCP> <524@phri.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: BDM Corporation, McLean, Virginia Lines: 29 Xref: linus net.news:3269 net.misc:7323 net.flame:11469 > > Boy I'm with you Todd. Signature files with graphics help me recognize > > those who posted articles. [...] I don't understand how USENET got the > > idea that net news readers find graphics offensive. > > A picture may indeed be worth a thousand words, but keep in mind > also that they cost about the same to transmit! As annoyed as I am (as a > news reader) at cute pictures taking up 8 lines at 1200 baud, I'm even more > annoyed (as a system administrator) at the disk space and phone time they > take to store and transfer. > -- > Roy Smith > System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute > 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Since posting my original article ( > > above) I have received mail from a few different sources (including my direct link to the net) explaining why graphics are frowned upon in .signature files. Roy paraphrases these responses pretty well. Although as a news reader I enjoy seeing the graphics, I can definitely understand why system administrators do not like them. Since I am not one to bite the hand that feeds me, (I consider the net a privilege that I would like to keep) I will eliminate superfluous graphics from my signature. -- Al Gates BDM Corporation ^ ^ ^ ^ {seismo,rlgvax}!bdmrrr!gates 7915 Jones Branch Drive McLean, Virginia 22102