Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cblpf!cbstr1!Karl.Kleinpaste
From: Karl.Kleinpaste@cbstr1.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: .signature line limit
Message-ID: <190@cbstr1.att.com>
Date: Tue, 31-Mar-87 09:48:15 EST
Article-I.D.: cbstr1.190
Posted: Tue Mar 31 09:48:15 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 2-Apr-87 00:37:05 EST
References: <1305@msudoc.UUCP> <186@cbstr1.att.com> <2623@phri.UUCP>
Sender: karl@cbstr1.att.com
Lines: 34
In-reply-to: roy@phri.UUCP's message of 31 Mar 87 01:23:11 GMT
Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.41.1 of Mon Mar 30 1987 on cbstr1 (usg-unix-v)

roy@phri.UUCP writes:
> > [2] Your title is not relevant...
>
> I for one would like to know just who you are.  If you are
> purporting to give out useful information, it would be nice if I had some
> idea of how qualified you were to be giving this advice.

As I said, this was an item of opinion.  Feel to keep yours, I'll do
the same with mine.  I have no idea what Guy Harris' title at Sun is,
I just know he does good work.  All your title tells me is that you're
the sysadmin of phri; it's from experience of your postings that I
know you make useful contributions.

> > [7] An ARPANet address is frequently the same as a UUCP address
>
>  That's all well and good, once the whole world converts to domains.
> Until then, it's a good idea to give your address on as many different
> networks as your machine is on.

Hm.  Well, all I can say is that I think one of the best ways to
propagate a standard is to put it to use.  The sooner we all do
something domainified with mail addresses, the sooner the few
remaining sites that don't understand domains will have to convert.

>  Don't get me wrong, I think 20-line signatures with pictures of the
> wife and kids and half the uucp map are a waste of time, space, and money.
> But to outlaw signatures altogether is going too far.

Sure.  I don't want them abolished entirely; but things are going off
the deep end fast.  The aging craze of opinion disclaimers and the
very recent flurry of restricted distribution exclusion clauses come
quickly to mind.

Karl