|
pamme (VHFRadioBuff) wrote:
Some posts have many places Oh yeah. A post about a email reflector having to due with legal issues belongs in a newsgroups for discussing amateur gear. Show me the logic in that! At no point did I say that the OP had posted appropriately. The point I made was that what *you* said was even worse than what the OP did. And while we discuss Usenet protocols, your signature is 1) too long 2) lacks the appropriate delimiter line, "-- ", between it and the text of your message. By what standard? Yours? Do you know anything at all about Usenet message formating? "If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb is no longer than 4 lines." rfc1855 "Netiquette Guidelines" "signature The three or four line message at the bottom of a piece of email or a Usenet article which identifies the sender. Large signatures (over five lines) are generally frowned upon. See also: Electronic Mail, Usenet." rfc1983 "Internet Users' Glossary" "4.3. Usenet Signature Convention There is a convention in Usenet news of using "-- " as the separator line between the body and the signature of a message." rfc2646 "The Text/Plain Format Parameter" Here is a more detailed explanation: http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/signatur.html You can go to google and find *thousands* of web sites which explain signatures in detail. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 73! de Andy KC2SSB (ex: KF4KHC/HL9HCT) Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com Fight Spam! http://spamcop.net National "Do Not Call" Registry: http://donotcall.gov Drop that last two lines and put a proper separator in there. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
pamme (VHFRadioBuff) wrote:
Some posts have many places Oh yeah. A post about a email reflector having to due with legal issues belongs in a newsgroups for discussing amateur gear. Show me the logic in that! At no point did I say that the OP had posted appropriately. The point I made was that what *you* said was even worse than what the OP did. And while we discuss Usenet protocols, your signature is 1) too long 2) lacks the appropriate delimiter line, "-- ", between it and the text of your message. By what standard? Yours? Do you know anything at all about Usenet message formating? "If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb is no longer than 4 lines." rfc1855 "Netiquette Guidelines" "signature The three or four line message at the bottom of a piece of email or a Usenet article which identifies the sender. Large signatures (over five lines) are generally frowned upon. See also: Electronic Mail, Usenet." rfc1983 "Internet Users' Glossary" "4.3. Usenet Signature Convention There is a convention in Usenet news of using "-- " as the separator line between the body and the signature of a message." rfc2646 "The Text/Plain Format Parameter" Here is a more detailed explanation: http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/signatur.html You can go to google and find *thousands* of web sites which explain signatures in detail. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 73! de Andy KC2SSB (ex: KF4KHC/HL9HCT) Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com Fight Spam! http://spamcop.net National "Do Not Call" Registry: http://donotcall.gov Drop that last two lines and put a proper separator in there. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
VHFRadioBuff wrote:
The three or four line message at the bottom of a piece of email or a Usenet article which identifies the sender. Large signatures (over five lines) are generally frowned upon. See also: Electronic Mail, Usenet." rfc1983 "Internet Users' Glossary" Umm.. 1983? I think that's a little outdated. Really should be updated after 20 years. That goes back to the days of 2400 baud modem when bandwidth was a concern. They are numbered sequentially, Andy. RFC1983 is dated August 1996. The last one on the list, as of 201513Z July 2003, is RFC3573. HTH -- The appearance of my E-mail address in any venue does not in and of itself constitute a solicitation of bulk or commercial E-mail. I don't want unsolicited commercial E-mail. |
VHFRadioBuff wrote:
The three or four line message at the bottom of a piece of email or a Usenet article which identifies the sender. Large signatures (over five lines) are generally frowned upon. See also: Electronic Mail, Usenet." rfc1983 "Internet Users' Glossary" Umm.. 1983? I think that's a little outdated. Really should be updated after 20 years. That goes back to the days of 2400 baud modem when bandwidth was a concern. They are numbered sequentially, Andy. RFC1983 is dated August 1996. The last one on the list, as of 201513Z July 2003, is RFC3573. HTH -- The appearance of my E-mail address in any venue does not in and of itself constitute a solicitation of bulk or commercial E-mail. I don't want unsolicited commercial E-mail. |
pamme (VHFRadioBuff) wrote:
The three or four line message at the bottom of a piece of email or a Usenet article which identifies the sender. Large signatures (over five lines) are generally frowned upon. See also: Electronic Mail, Usenet." rfc1983 "Internet Users' Glossary" Umm.. 1983? I think that's a little outdated. Really should be updated after 20 years. That goes back to the days of 2400 baud modem when bandwidth was a concern. rfc1983 is a document number. It was originally published in 1996, when it replace rfc1392. I assure you that rfc1392 was not published in 1392 any more than rfc1983 was published in 1983. You can go to google and find *thousands* of web sites which explain signatures in detail. No, *YOU* can. I have a life. That's why you go around acting as a net cop when you don't even know what RFC's are? -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
pamme (VHFRadioBuff) wrote:
The three or four line message at the bottom of a piece of email or a Usenet article which identifies the sender. Large signatures (over five lines) are generally frowned upon. See also: Electronic Mail, Usenet." rfc1983 "Internet Users' Glossary" Umm.. 1983? I think that's a little outdated. Really should be updated after 20 years. That goes back to the days of 2400 baud modem when bandwidth was a concern. rfc1983 is a document number. It was originally published in 1996, when it replace rfc1392. I assure you that rfc1392 was not published in 1392 any more than rfc1983 was published in 1983. You can go to google and find *thousands* of web sites which explain signatures in detail. No, *YOU* can. I have a life. That's why you go around acting as a net cop when you don't even know what RFC's are? -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
That's why you go around acting as a net cop when you don't
even know what RFC's are? I bet you have them printed out nice and neat in a binder next to your enshrined C64, don't you? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 73! de Andy KC2SSB (ex: KF4KHC/HL9HCT) Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com Fight Spam! http://spamcop.net National "Do Not Call" Registry: http://donotcall.gov |
That's why you go around acting as a net cop when you don't
even know what RFC's are? I bet you have them printed out nice and neat in a binder next to your enshrined C64, don't you? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 73! de Andy KC2SSB (ex: KF4KHC/HL9HCT) Beachwood, NJ USA! Grid FM29vw http://vhfradiobuff.tripod.com Fight Spam! http://spamcop.net National "Do Not Call" Registry: http://donotcall.gov |
"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message ... pamme (VHFRadioBuff) wrote: The three or four line message at the bottom of a piece of email or a Usenet article which identifies the sender. Large signatures (over five lines) are generally frowned upon. See also: Electronic Mail, Usenet." rfc1983 "Internet Users' Glossary" Umm.. 1983? I think that's a little outdated. Really should be updated after 20 years. That goes back to the days of 2400 baud modem when bandwidth was a concern. rfc1983 is a document number. It was originally published in 1996, when it replace rfc1392. I assure you that rfc1392 was not published in 1392 any more than rfc1983 was published in 1983. You can go to google and find *thousands* of web sites which explain signatures in detail. No, *YOU* can. I have a life. That's why you go around acting as a net cop when you don't even know what RFC's are? -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He has a life???? Yea, that of acting net god..... STUFF IT NET COP..... What you bitched about, is nothing compared to the Spam really taking place. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com