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