Xref: utzoo comp.mail.misc:1046 comp.mail.uucp:1396 news.admin:2803 news.misc:1577 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!bbn!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!cadre!pitt!darth!libove!root From: root@libove.UUCP (The Super User) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,comp.mail.uucp,news.admin,news.misc Subject: Re: Multiple addresses in .signature Message-ID: <47@libove.UUCP> Date: 22 Jun 88 22:46:25 GMT References: <1217@odyssee.UUCP> Organization: NKJL Enterprises Lines: 33 From article <1217@odyssee.UUCP>, by pinard@odyssee.UUCP (Francois Pinard): > > Recently, I received this comment from a nice fellow: > > P.S. Sincedoesn't know where odyssee.uucp is, I suggest > you add some more info to your signature. > [ much discussion on why we shouldn't have multiple signatures deleted ] Try to keep in mind that many people (I vote for most) who use all of the networks (BITnet,the DARPA Internet, UUCP, etc...) do *not* know much about networking and gatewaying, and many sites have the networks available at sufference, thus question about getting to another net may not get answered, in the terms of the original poster, mom may not be available to ask. I favor small signatures, mine is in fact larger than I like, but it makes it possible for jsut about anyone, knowing almost nothing about networks, to mail to me; it includes my snail mail address as a last resort. Since the networks are not yet standardized, it seems that the extra line or two in most signatures, expensive though they do indeed add up to be, is worthwhile to make the net a friendlier place for the novice user (please no flames about letting novices learn the hard way like we did, analagously that is how "my father was an alcoholic and beat me, so I'm going to beat my son..." work). -- Jay Libove Internet: libove@cs.cmu.edu libove@andrew.cmu.edu 5313 Ellsworth Avenue formtek!ditka!libove!libove@pt.cs.cmu.edu Pittsburgh, PA 15232 UUCP: cmucspt!formtek!ditka!libove!libove (412) 621-9649 cadre!pitt!darth!libove!libove