Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!seismo!sundc!hqda-ai!merlin
From: merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: .signature line limit
Message-ID: <334@hqda-ai.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-Apr-87 18:13:50 EST
Article-I.D.: hqda-ai.334
Posted: Thu Apr  2 18:13:50 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Apr-87 18:05:31 EST
References: <1305@msudoc.UUCP> <325@hqda-ai.UUCP> <280@wolf.UUCP>
Organization: Army AI Center, Pentagon
Lines: 30

In article <280@wolf.UUCP>, billw@wolf.UUCP (Bill Wisner) writes:

> ..then people would simply type a couple of dashes and concatenate
> .signature.  And what about your own four lines?

==> (setf *flame* :medium) <==

     What about my own four lines?  They're included exactly once,
they meet the current standard for signatures (4 lines), and
most of the characters involved provide legitimate information.
Besides, one of those 4 lines is blank, requiring a total of ONE
BYTE to transmit.

==> (setf *flame* nil) <==

     I should have been more specific.  I was not suggesting that
we should not allow any sort of signature at all.  I have no
objection to people MANUALLY including their signature files.  At
least that way, they'd only include them once.  I think much of
the problem comes from the disparity between mailers and news
readers.  Mail usually does not have a signature _automatically_
added, but news does.

     I will continue to be annoyed by, and occassionally object
to, people who post bit-mapped pictures of Rand-McNally Usenet
Atlas.  My apologies for not saying what I really meant the first
time around.
-- 
David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon	PhoneNet:  (202) 694-6900
UUCP:  *!seismo!sundc!hqda-ai!merlin	ARPA:  merlin%hqda-ai.uucp@brl.arpa