Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bfmny0!tneff From: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions Subject: Re: Signature files (LONG) Message-ID: <14568@bfmny0.UU.NET> Date: 19 Aug 89 16:45:21 GMT References: <15046@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <549@buster.UUCP> <2689@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> <2182@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> <30744@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) Organization: Bloomberg LP Lines: 16 In article <30744@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes: >>Just out of curiosity, is there any reason why I should have a .sig at all? >>It would just be a repeat of the Reply-To line I suppose. >Somebody give the man a medal. Thank you. If your news and mail posting software is completely well behaved and/or you have control over what it does, AND if what it puts is a reliable return address, then you don't really need a .sig. But considering the number of broken mailers out there (some of which illegally mess with that very Reply-To header line!), it safer to put at least one line with a RELIABLE mail path next to your name. Personally I use two lines because Elvis told me to. -- "We walked on the moon -- (( Tom Neff you be polite" )) tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET