Thouoght I'd share some pictures

Alan Browne wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:

Alan did not pen the charter, although he - and all of us in r.p.d at

Well, actually I did pen the major and revised versions of it for
Thadeus Lip****z (who started this NG) and enlisted my help as
co-proponent.

So, where the devil did he go? Or was he a figment all the time?

In any event, you are not able to change a word of the Charter now,
would you not agree?

Few people care about length of sig lines that are properly done -
i.e, a sig delimiter above the name, including salutation. (Thus
Alan's is generally wrong, regardless of number of lines.)

Mine is correct, there is a double "-" in front before it. When I view
my posts with Thunderbird my sig is de-emphasized properly.


Yes, your sig delimiter works fine in Thunderbird, Mozilla, Seamonkey
and any news clients that support a longtime standard.

My point, however small, is that the purpose of the delimiter is to
automatically delete the boilerplate, and thus to trim the quoted
material so that subsequent replies carry less dead space. Thus, the
name and Cheers part could well be put below the two dashes, space and
return.

--

Cheers,

John

Remember to pillage *before* you burn.

Alan Browne wrote:

Do you have a "reply - to" set to your e-mail when you post to usenet?

For whatever reason, your previous post has your e-mail as the Reply-to.

--
john mcwilliams

at precisely 11:53:08 AM on Saturday, August 11, 2007

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 13:48:47 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
:
: Do you have a "reply - to" set to your e-mail when you post to usenet?

Who? Me? (Since I was the last poster in this branch of the thread, other than
yourself.) No, I don't think so. (And I'm too lazy to look it up.) But I post
under my own name (Robert Kimball Coe) and email address ). So if
you want to reply to me by email, you can.

I'm not crazy (to post under my real name) as some have suggested. But I do
use one of the best spam filters available. ;^)

Bob

Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 13:48:47 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
:
: Do you have a "reply - to" set to your e-mail when you post to usenet?

Who? Me? (Since I was the last poster in this branch of the thread, other than
yourself.) No, I don't think so. (And I'm too lazy to look it up.) But I post
under my own name (Robert Kimball Coe) and email address ). So if
you want to reply to me by email, you can.

It's just odd that when I replied to your post (prev. reply) my local
"sent" folder showed it sent to you rather than the NG (usual). It did
get posted here as well. Just looked odd.

"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...
John McWilliams wrote:

Few people care about length of sig lines that are properly done - i.e,
a sig delimiter above the name, including salutation.

Don't make things up.

Daniele


Why don't you get a clue instead?

--
www.mattclara.com

Matt Clara wrote:

Few people care about length of sig lines that are properly done - i.e,
a sig delimiter above the name, including salutation.

Don't make things up.

Why don't you get a clue instead?

It has been a Usenet standard for decades that signatures should be a
maximum of 72 (or 80, depending upon whether you think signatures ever
need to be quoted) characters by 4 lines. This is not a formally
enshrined convention, however it is accepted as the acceptable maximum
size of a .signature.

RFC 1855 nods at the four-line limit saying it's a rule-of-thumb, but
also notes that signatures should be kept short.

There has never been any notion that the signature should contain "the
name, including salutation". John just made that up.

Finally, you might like to take care to edit quoted material properly in
your replies.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Daniele

"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...
Matt Clara wrote:

Few people care about length of sig lines that are properly done -
i.e,
a sig delimiter above the name, including salutation.

Don't make things up.

Why don't you get a clue instead?

It has been a Usenet standard for decades that signatures should be a
maximum of 72 (or 80, depending upon whether you think signatures ever
need to be quoted) characters by 4 lines. This is not a formally
enshrined convention, however it is accepted as the acceptable maximum
size of a .signature.

RFC 1855 nods at the four-line limit saying it's a rule-of-thumb, but
also notes that signatures should be kept short.

There has never been any notion that the signature should contain "the
name, including salutation". John just made that up.

Finally, you might like to take care to edit quoted material properly in
your replies.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Daniele

Mind you these twenty year old "standards" were penned when bandwidth and
storage was thought of in very small numbers, perhaps an update is in order.
Of course seeing as it is so difficult to get changes made most Usenet users
will just not care that much, I think I am one of those.

"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...
Matt Clara wrote:

Few people care about length of sig lines that are properly done -
i.e,
a sig delimiter above the name, including salutation.

Don't make things up.

Why don't you get a clue instead?

It has been a Usenet standard for decades that signatures should be a
maximum of 72 (or 80, depending upon whether you think signatures ever
need to be quoted) characters by 4 lines. This is not a formally
enshrined convention, however it is accepted as the acceptable maximum
size of a .signature.

RFC 1855 nods at the four-line limit saying it's a rule-of-thumb, but
also notes that signatures should be kept short.

There has never been any notion that the signature should contain "the
name, including salutation". John just made that up.

Finally, you might like to take care to edit quoted material properly in
your replies.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Daniele

Why don't you be specific the first time around, next time? "Few people
care about length of sig lines" Is 100 percent true.

--
www.mattclara.com

Matt Clara wrote:

Why don't you be specific the first time around, next time? "Few people
care about length of sig lines" Is 100 percent true.

But the ones who do really, really care.

Daniele

John McWilliams wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:

Alan did not pen the charter, although he - and all of us in r.p.d at

Well, actually I did pen the major and revised versions of it for
Thadeus Lip****z (who started this NG) and enlisted my help as
co-proponent.

So, where the devil did he go? Or was he a figment all the time?

I wrote him e-mails a few times, he pleaded "newsgroup fatigue" and I
think he was also dis-heartened by the troll wars that erupted at about
the same time. Even recently as this subject came up I considered
writing to him, but didn't. I'll get a round tuit.

In any event, you are not able to change a word of the Charter now,
would you not agree?

"Officially" we would have to make a proposed group change and sign up a
bunch of people willing to vote for it... (exact procedure escapes me).
It can be done. Have at it if you like.

My point, however small, is that the purpose of the delimiter is to
automatically delete the boilerplate, and thus to trim the quoted
material so that subsequent replies carry less dead space. Thus, the
name and Cheers part could well be put below the two dashes, space and
return.

Oh that. I guess I consider my 'sig' to be the 'boilerplate' and my
salutation to be something I add according to the reply.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.