Re: Selecciones

DanS. filted:

R H Draney added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
7/19/2010 in writing

I suppose that's why your own sigs are from three to four times the maximum
length dictated by Usenet convention....r

Been her for years, my man. Whatever dictates you'd forward, I'd
smoothly pooey on in an instant and cite many many of the remaining
Usenet users who'll pooey on them with me.

Didn't take me long to find this (quoted from
http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/signatur.html "What are the restrictions for a
proper signature):

The question of a proper signature can cause perhaps more arguments than any
other single netiquette issue (besides spam). Superficially, and technically the
main issues would seem clear:

* No more than four lines. Occasionally called the "4-line McQuary limit".
* Use "-- " as the beginning marker.

However, as you'll see, it is not quite that straight-forward.

Net etiquette (the "netiquette") and practice dictate about four lines at a
maximum. This is a sensible and commendable restriction. But contrary to the
common belief and frequent claims its nature is that of a recommendation. For
example RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines state "If you include a signature keep it
short. Rule of thumb is no longer than 4 lines." (The "-- " beginning marker is
not counted as one of the four lines.) Likewise A Primer on How to Work With the
Usenet Community states "Don't Overdo Signatures". [Underlining is mine.]
Furthermore, on the technical level some programs and ISPs automatically limit
the signature length to the said four lines.

<end quote>

The above document goes on at much greater length to discuss further issues, but
it *begins* with the four paragraphs quoted; note that the *very first*
guideline is simply "No more than four lines"....

Note that your beginning marker is also incorrect; there's no space following
the two hyphens, which means the entire .sig shows up as quoted material
whenever I respond to one of your posts and I then have to delete it....

Usenet's dying. It's an
easy life compared to what it used to be: vibrant and full of life,
abounding with trolls, fools, wise-guys and sages alike. Now, you may
encounter one or two a week of the aforementioned. No, it's dying. It
may live on in a group or two for some years, but it is a shadow of its
former self.

One or two trolls a week?...in aue, I've only seen one in the past month....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge-response mail filters considered harmful
    ... I'm on a yahoo mailing list that automatically strips PGP signatures ... I consider that a genuine breach of netiquette. ... > My signature shows up as a 0.2k attachment. ... I have a script that looks at the sigs in incoming mail as it's ...
    (Debian-User)
  • Re: Symantec AV signature corruption
    ... The vendor response on this issue may have been a bit light on detail ... Users logged in in the morning and applied dodgy sigs. ... Had to write script to manually rollback to last signature, ... Client accepted sigs silently, and effectively had zero viruses in the ...
    (NT-Bugtraq)
  • Re: Cisco IPS dropping packets
    ... IPS fail closed is disabled ... Signature Micro-Engine: OTHER ... SigID:SubID On Action Sev Trait MH AI CT TI AT FA WF ... Signature Micro-Engine: STRING.UDP (1 sigs) ...
    (comp.dcom.sys.cisco)
  • Re: Cats Are Very Shy Toileters
    ... That isn't a signature. ... It's bad netiquette. ... The formatting of the sig block is prescribed somewhat more firmly: ... delimiter is required for a news posting program to receive the Good Netkeeping ...
    (rec.pets.cats.anecdotes)
  • Re: Proposed 3rd : RFD for uk.rec.cycling.moderated
    ... What or is not in signature files is not a matter for discussion ... and fit in with the wording in the RFD. ... If the panel is not going to block ordinary, ... compliant sigs then it is the panel that is proposing sigs be ...
    (uk.net.news.config)