Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!watmath!xenitec!edhew From: edhew@xenitec.uucp (Ed Hew) Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions Subject: Re: Signature files (LONG) Message-ID: <1989Aug19.063337.13750@xenitec.uucp> Date: 19 Aug 89 06:33:37 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: edhew@xenitec.UUCP (Ed Hew) Organization: Xenitec Consulting Services, Kitchener, ON Lines: 21 In article <30744@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes: >Article quoted in its entirety, something I don't do often: >>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. The problem is that it's sometimes hard to route email from "b" to "a", because your mailer can't find a useable "a" off the originating "From" line. That's why it can be very useful for others if we create a .sig with a reasonable reply path, usually relative to a commonly understood reference point (some people still call them backbones). These days, virtually everyone in na (uucp domain) can be referenced relative to uunet. The other networks have their reference points as well. One's .sig provides that relative reference. Ed. A. Hew Authorized Technical Trainer Xeni/Con Corporation work: edhew@xenicon.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}utai!lsuc!xenicon!edhew ->home: edhew@egvideo.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}watmath!egvideo!edhew ->home: changing to: edhew@xenitec.uucp [but be patient for new maps]