1. Signatures at end of EMail messages
I want to know what's so bad about the fancy-looking
signatures that spell out names or look cool at the
ends of EMails. Pete Eberlein always has a fancy one
that says PETE, so why are there people complaining
Lewis'? I'm not saying that they should be stopped or
allowed, I just want to know what's wrong with them?
Mike Hurley
=====
Think about it-
Bill Gates has enough money to buy everybody in the world a large
pizza. Most of us don't even have enough money to buy everybody
in the world a 20 minute phone call for 99 cents!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com
2. Re: Signatures at end of EMail messages
> ---------------------- Information from the mail
header -----------------------
> Sender: Euphoria Programming for MS-DOS
<EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
> Poster: Mike Hurley <mike_hurley_2 at YAHOO.COM>
> Subject: Signatures at end of EMail messages
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> I want to know what's so bad about the fancy-looking
> signatures that spell out names or look cool at the
> ends of EMails.
<SNIP>
>
> Mike Hurley
**Some fixed width Fonts listed at bottom of message.
1. They can't read it, so they don't like it. (candor)
Most people read their Email in a proportional font.
This makes the fancy spelled signatures look like a
pile of garbage characters.
(As Kat so elegantly pointed out in a previous post)
2. Printing a hard copy. (A somewhat valid point.)
Some people can't pull themselves from ink and paper
and feel they must print these messages. Again,
many times it is printed in a proportional font and
on top of that. It can make a (1) one page message
(2) two pages. (Just because of the fancy signature.)
3. Many people simply complain that it is a waste of
bandwidth and hard drive space.
Bandwidth: They wouldn't notice the hundredth of the
second difference. The ISP connect time took
longer.
Hard drive space: Come on, The chance of the
signature actually making a difference in
allocated drive space is very low.
All files are stored in clusters. These
clusters start at a minimum size of 512 bytes
(floppy disks), and move up to and beyond 32,768
bytes (32K)(hard drives). Many messages fall well
within this 16K-32K. Some common clusters sizes
are 4K, 8K, 16K, and 32K. Even Pete's 12 line
signature falls under 1K.
Did I miss anything?
Fixed width fonts:
Most anything that reads fixed or terminal.
Terminal screens rely on fixed width fonts for proper
display.
* means and variations such as Courier New
COMMON: Courier *, Fixedsys, Lucinda Console *,
Lucinda Sans Unicode *.
OTHERS: (no telling where I got some of these)
Arabic Transparent, Gulimche, MingLiU *,
Miriam Fixed, MS Gothic, MS Hei, MS LineDraw, MS Song,
OCR A Extended, Rod, Traditional Arabic.
Lucius L. Hilley III
lhilley at cdc.net
+----------+--------------+--------------+
| Hollow | ICQ: 9638898 | AIM: LLHIII |
| Horse +--------------+--------------+
| Software | http://www.cdc.net/~lhilley |
+----------+-----------------------------+
3. Re: Signatures at end of EMail messages
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Hurley" <mike_hurley_2 at YAHOO.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 7:51 AM
Subject: Signatures at end of EMail messages
> I want to know what's so bad about the fancy-looking
> signatures that spell out names or look cool at the
> ends of EMails. Pete Eberlein always has a fancy one
> that says PETE, so why are there people complaining
> Lewis'? I'm not saying that they should be stopped or
> allowed, I just want to know what's wrong with them?
Not a whole lot, if you can read them and the email is in a compressed form
on the harddrive. Otherwise, they are unreadable and take up more room than
the body of the email takes up. Plus, in those places there you pay for
internet access by the minute, long sigs only serve to increase your
internet bill.
It's not just sigs either that people tend to complain about, it's including
the entire email you are replying to in the body of your reply. I have seen
emails with 4 lines of text and 100 lines of sigs and listserv
advertisements. For instance, in this email i included 14 lines from your
email and deleted 29 lines. Others may include those 29 lines in their
replies and irritate Jiri. I'll prolly write a filter to remove them one day
so at least i don't haveto look at Yahoo ads (not your fault, Mike, that's
*not* a poke at you).
Kat
4. Re: Signatures at end of EMail messages
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lucius L. Hilley III" <lhilley at CDC.NET>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: Signatures at end of EMail messages
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail
> header -----------------------
> > Sender: Euphoria Programming for MS-DOS
> <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
> > Poster: Mike Hurley <mike_hurley_2 at YAHOO.COM>
> > Subject: Signatures at end of EMail messages
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > I want to know what's so bad about the fancy-looking
> > signatures that spell out names or look cool at the
> > ends of EMails.
> <SNIP>
> >
> > Mike Hurley
>
> **Some fixed width Fonts listed at bottom of message.
>
> 1. They can't read it, so they don't like it. (candor)
> Most people read their Email in a proportional font.
> This makes the fancy spelled signatures look like a
> pile of garbage characters.
> (As Kat so elegantly pointed out in a previous post)
>
> 2. Printing a hard copy. (A somewhat valid point.)
> Some people can't pull themselves from ink and paper
> and feel they must print these messages. Again,
> many times it is printed in a proportional font and
> on top of that. It can make a (1) one page message
> (2) two pages. (Just because of the fancy signature.)
Can't they also get around that by printing the *screen* and not the entire
email? If using a proportional font, you can get more on the screen and the
page too.
> 3. Many people simply complain that it is a waste of
> bandwidth and hard drive space.
> Bandwidth: They wouldn't notice the hundredth of the
> second difference. The ISP connect time took
> longer.
> Hard drive space: Come on, The chance of the
> signature actually making a difference in
> allocated drive space is very low.
> All files are stored in clusters. These
> clusters start at a minimum size of 512 bytes
> (floppy disks), and move up to and beyond 32,768
> bytes (32K)(hard drives). Many messages fall well
> within this 16K-32K. Some common clusters sizes
> are 4K, 8K, 16K, and 32K. Even Pete's 12 line
> signature falls under 1K.
>
> Did I miss anything?
Yes, the big picture there. *One* email source with a 12 line sig isn't the
problem, it when it's common practice and you discover if you open the
*compressed* email file on your harddrive, that you could cut the 6Meg file
size in half if you deleted the sigs and advertisements and html code.
And it must add to listserv work to email out those 12 lines x subscriber
number. Not that that one matters here.
Kat
