On Tue, 7 Mar 2000, Eric Cifreo wrote:
>
>
> >
> > On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Darren Line wrote:
> >
> > ... body of message snipped ...
> >
> > > **********************************************************************
> > > The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and
> > >
> > <flame on>
> >
> > will you please, fer cryin' out loud, trim that insipid signature??
> > sheesh.
>
> You make a good point about pointless bullsh!t in .sigs. Nobody wants to
> see your 50 lines of ASCII art that often.
>
> However, (and I'm leaping to just as large a conclusion as you have) did you
> even stop to consider that his smtp server at his company just might be
> automatically appending this to each outgoing message? Who would want this
> crap on their messages anyway?
if this is the case, then of course i'm out of line and feeling a mite
sheepish. but i'm getting powerful tired of pointless, off-topic
signatures. and it's not just the length these days.
over the last few days, i've had sigs on technical newsgroups tell
me more than i want to know about their posters's political leanings,
their fondness for thomas jefferson quotes, their religious affiliation,
their love of the second amendment, and so on. and i *know* those
aren't company policy sigs.
so it's not just the length that's getting irritating. is there
some sort of grassroots movement i can start to get people to
smarten up with their sigs? just curious. sigh.
rday
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
