nanog mailing list archives
Re: operational context? Re: signature
From: Scott Granados <scott () graphidelix net>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 17:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Hmmm, do pgp sig's count and aren't they longer? I still like the idea that using longer sigs will use up extra unused fiber:) On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Jim Mercer wrote:
On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 12:51:18AM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:At 6:28 PM -0400 2002/08/07, William Warren wrote:My sig is now 4 lines.It's not just the total number of lines. It's also about the number of characters on each line -- .sigs should generally be wrapped at 72-75 characters, just like e-mail messages.i'm certainly glad the moderator of the list is watching to make sure people don't drone on endlessly about such non-operational issues such as SPAM. the length of one's signature and/or expressing one's religious beliefs must have some obscure operational context. --jim fully expecting to have posting privileges revoked for another 6 months.
Current thread:
- signature William Warren (Aug 07)
- Re: signature Scott Granados (Aug 07)
- Re: signature Brad Knowles (Aug 07)
- operational context? Re: signature Jim Mercer (Aug 07)
- Re: operational context? Re: signature Scott Granados (Aug 07)
- Re: signature Martin Hannigan (Aug 07)
- operational context? Re: signature Jim Mercer (Aug 07)