On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:07:43 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:


As I pointed out, characterwise my signature is not even five complete
lines of text, and is therefore under the six-line "recommended"
limit. The URLs are on separate lines for the obvious reasons.

In direct contravention to RFC 1855

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html


- If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb
is no longer than 4 lines. Remember that many people pay for
connectivity by the minute, and the longer your message is,
the more they pay.


Attempting to excuse your lack of netiquette by claiming that its not
really 10 lines long doesn't wash I'm afraid.


Your .sig delimiter is also non compliant.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StandardSigDelimiter

Internet signatures in mail and news should begin with the character
sequence
DASH DASH SPACE EOL






greg


--
Yeah - straight from the top of my dome
As I rock, rock, rock, rock, rock the microphone

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:13:58 +0000, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:07:43 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:


As I pointed out, characterwise my signature is not even five complete
lines of text, and is therefore under the six-line "recommended"
limit. The URLs are on separate lines for the obvious reasons.

In direct contravention to RFC 1855

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

Almost ten years old now - formulated at a time when things were a lot
different in a lot of respects.

- If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb
is no longer than 4 lines. Remember that many people pay for
connectivity by the minute, and the longer your message is,
the more they pay.

"Rule of thumb." Also note use of, "Guidelines," and, "This memo does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind."

Attempting to excuse your lack of netiquette by claiming that its not
really 10 lines long doesn't wash I'm afraid.

Tough. Maybe you'd like me to replace it with a solid block of text
that would be exactly the same number of characters, but a lot less
clear?

Your .sig delimiter is also non compliant.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StandardSigDelimiter

Internet signatures in mail and news should begin with the character
sequence
DASH DASH SPACE EOL

Point accepted and corrected, although it seemed to "work" as it was,
anyway.
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:34:10 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:



In direct contravention to RFC 1855

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

Almost ten years old now - formulated at a time when things were a lot
different in a lot of respects.

The age is irrelevant. Do you suggest that the RFCs for tcp and smtp are
somehow different/out of date due to their age ?

Not everyone has access to clever newsreaders which can auto clip
signatures, or read news through a gui.

Broadband is still a luxury for a lot of folks.


Tough. Maybe you'd like me to replace it with a solid block of text
that would be exactly the same number of characters, but a lot less
clear?

What you replace it with is irrelevant. The facts are is that you are
exceeding what is deemed 'polite' by 2.5 times.

We've all been there.

Your .sig delimiter is also non compliant.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?StandardSigDelimiter

Internet signatures in mail and news should begin with the character
sequence
DASH DASH SPACE EOL

Point accepted and corrected, although it seemed to "work" as it was,
anyway.

Depends on the news reader, some are a mite more forgiving than others.


greg



--
Yeah - straight from the top of my dome
As I rock, rock, rock, rock, rock the microphone

Greg Hennessy wrote:

The age is irrelevant. Do you suggest that the RFCs for tcp and smtp are
somehow different/out of date due to their age ?

No, they are still active Internet Standards. The document you quote was
never an Internet Standard.
--
Michael Hoffman

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 23:52:12 +0000, Michael Hoffman
wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:

The age is irrelevant. Do you suggest that the RFCs for tcp and smtp are
somehow different/out of date due to their age ?

No, they are still active Internet Standards. The document you quote was
never an Internet Standard.

Nonsense,

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc793.html

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html




greg


--
Yeah - straight from the top of my dome
As I rock, rock, rock, rock, rock the microphone

Greg Hennessy wrote:
The age is irrelevant. Do you suggest that the RFCs for tcp and smtp are
somehow different/out of date due to their age ?

No, they are still active Internet Standards. The document you quote was
never an Internet Standard.


Nonsense,

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc793.html

I don't see what referring to this again accomplishes. It's still an
Internet Standard (STD 7).

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html

This is no longer an Internet Standard, having been obsoleted by RFC
2821 (STD 10).

The original document you quoted on netiquette was never an Internet
standard. They are all listed on the same site you referred to at
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/std/std-index.html.

If you believe that all RFCs are normative, then you must find RFC 1796,
"Not All RFCs Are Standards" quite paradoxical:

} It is a regrettably well spread misconception that publication as an
} RFC provides some level of recognition. It does not, or at least not
} any more than the publication in a regular journal. In fact, each
} RFC has a status, relative to its relation with the Internet
} standardization process: Informational, Experimental, or Standards
} Track (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, Internet Standard), or
} Historic.

The document you quote is informational only.
--
Michael Hoffman

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 18:25:43 +0000, Michael Hoffman
wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:
The age is irrelevant. Do you suggest that the RFCs for tcp and smtp are
somehow different/out of date due to their age ?

No, they are still active Internet Standards. The document you quote was
never an Internet Standard.


Nonsense,

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc793.html

I don't see what referring to this again accomplishes. It's still an
Internet Standard (STD 7).

Rubbish,

TCP was defined by a plain old RFC long before it became an IETF standard.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html

This is no longer an Internet Standard, having been obsoleted by RFC
2821 (STD 10).

See above.



greg


--
Yeah - straight from the top of my dome
As I rock, rock, rock, rock, rock the microphone