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 I think that's a little outdated.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

"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 I think that's a little outdated.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.

"Spamhater" wrote in message
...

"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.




Andy the VHF boob is a idiot. After a very short while it will be obvious
to anyone with any brains at all. Let him go on ...and on...and on and he
will eventually prove my point.

Have a nice day.

Dan/W4NTI

"Spamhater" wrote in message
...

"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.




Andy the VHF boob is a idiot. After a very short while it will be obvious
to anyone with any brains at all. Let him go on ...and on...and on and he
will eventually prove my point.

Have a nice day.

Dan/W4NTI

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.