Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!rpi.edu!rodney From: rodney@sun.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions Subject: Re: Signature files (LONG) Message-ID:Date: 19 Aug 89 19:36:27 GMT References: <2182@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu> <73.UUL1.3#5131@mvac23.UUCP> Sender: usenet@rpi.edu Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Image Processing Lab, Troy NY Lines: 25 In-reply-to: thomas@mvac23.UUCP's message of 19 Aug 89 00:26:09 GMT In article <73.UUL1.3#5131@mvac23.UUCP> thomas@mvac23.UUCP (Thomas Lapp) 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. TL> Woah here. I disagree!!! [some explanations of how he has a broken machine] TL> Summary: ADD a .sig with your e-mail addresses for as many networks as TL> you know (within reason, of course ;-). TL> - tom No, that's pretty poor advise. Why propagate this information just because your machine is brain damaged? Some of us have working computers. It costs some people real dollars to send this stuff you know. You want them to pay just because you don't want to scroll?? oh. ok. -- Rodney