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