Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!mcnc!xanth!kyle
From: kyle@xanth.UUCP (Kyle Jones)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: A great way of hosing the 4-line signature limit.
Message-ID: <1769@xanth.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-Jul-87 03:15:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: xanth.1769
Posted: Fri Jul 31 03:15:47 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Aug-87 21:14:44 EDT
References: <1418@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <485@unisoft.UUCP>
Lines: 20
Summary: HERE WE GO AGAIN!!!

> The sad, pathetic truth is that if those who put significant time and
> effort (but insignificant thought) into the 50% rule and the four-line
> signature rule had instead put that time into implementing workable
> solutions to the problems, then the obnoxious workarounds would not
> be necessary.

The USENET News software is distributed with complete sources.  If you don't
like something in it, fix it.  After all, you didn't pay one red cent for this
software.  How about giving a little something back?  Instead of railing
vituperative, outline and implement some "workable solutions" to the problems
that the 4-line .signature and 50%-inclusion heuristics address.

But before you begin, take a look at the statistics posted in news.lists.
Consider the costs incurred to sites all over the world by the posting of a
single news article.  Consider the audience to which a typical news article is
presented.  Consider how EASY it is to post such an article.  Now do the
4-line .signature and 50%-inclusion heuristics seem so extreme, in light of the
above data?  Given the number of people who will read a typical news article,
don't you think that having simple heuristics that cause people to sit back and
take another look at their articles before posting is desirable?