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

JRS: In article , dated Sun, 5 Dec
2004 14:38:53, seen in news:uk.transport.london, Nick Cooper
posted :

a) My signature is less than 310 characters - less than 5 complete
lines on a standard 70 character wrap, i.e.e lett than the six line
recommended limit.


The accepted Usenet limit is four lines; implicitly of not more than 79
or 80 characters each. Nowadays the actual number of characters, within
what the above implies, is not considered to be of so much importance;
the limit of four lines reduces superfluous scrolling, on various viewing
systems, to a reasonable minimum.

The significant material in your sig can readily be fitted in five lines,
and in four if the label of the long URL is made to agree better with the
page's filename.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 02:14:46 -0000, Dave Plumb
wrote:
On the tube, why are there only a finite number of reasons for delays with
very little explanation (and often different reasons at different
stations)?

I used to trap these for national rail to text myself when there were
problems, and shortened them. This is what I had logged, maybe the tube ones
are similar or the same.

British Rail used not to be able to manage the same reason at the same
station twice in 10 minutes.

I well remember this back in, I think, 1979, when Victoria was being
re-laid. Now, they managed to get all the suckers^Wcusotmers^Wpassengers
into town in the morning, then merrily set-to ripping up track, etc.,
ensuring that there was often a monumental f**k-up by the evening so
no-one could get home.

On one occasion, the problem was a traction current failure outside
the station. 10 minutes later, this had mysteriously become a signal
failure outside the station....

--
Mike Pellatt
Just use R(eply) (from a standards-compliant newsreader)
to email me - address will be valid for a few months after
this posting. Novel idea, huh ?? And the spam doesnt arrive....

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, 5 Dec 2004 21:02:47 +0000, Dr John Stockton
wrote:

JRS: In article , dated Sun, 5 Dec
2004 14:38:53, seen in news:uk.transport.london, Nick Cooper
posted :

a) My signature is less than 310 characters - less than 5 complete
lines on a standard 70 character wrap, i.e.e lett than the six line
recommended limit.


The accepted Usenet limit is four lines; implicitly of not more than 79
or 80 characters each. Nowadays the actual number of characters, within
what the above implies, is not considered to be of so much importance;
the limit of four lines reduces superfluous scrolling, on various viewing
systems, to a reasonable minimum.

The significant material in your sig can readily be fitted in five lines,
and in four if the label of the long URL is made to agree better with the
page's filename.

So sue me.

--
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

So sue me.


You are duely added to my "kill file" aka Block list. It's a shame we can't
all cooperate

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

"Huge" wrote in message
...
Thursday, Jubilee Line, fox on line at West Hampstead. There was too, it
ran
down the line in front of the Southbound platform.

This is what you get when you ban fox hunting

--
Everything above is the personal opinion of the author, and nothing to do
with where he works and all that lovely disclaimery stuff.
Posted in his lunch hour too.