Fernando's massive sig(now off-topic but in-thread)

[Brian Fahrlander]

Bart Silverstrim wrote:

>> Matt, tell me, what am I doing that is so irritating? A simple
>> signature?
> 
> While I'm not Matt, I am a bit of an email retentive...

     Me, too; I'm using the occasion of this message to show how to 
politely respond to a message. (Notice no top positing.)  :)

> It's not hard to be irritated by people's email habits when you spend a 
> great deal of time using email and communicating with people via the 
> typed word.
> 
> Here's some points to consider...
> 
> A) quoting.  I don't need to see a person's #$%@ sig three or four times 
> because the quoter is too lazy to trim it down.  Unfortunately it's 
> common, so the best approach is to not put it in in the first place.  I 
> mainly need to know who you are, maybe your digital signature if you're 
> worried about authenticity.  Most people don't need ASCII art or silly 
> quotes, etc...this is a discussion/tech group, please reserve that 
> information for private email.

     YES, DEAR GOD, if you're not going to use it, snip it!  It's so 
easy to do- just mark it with the mouse and press 'delete'.  We don't 
need huge emails that are hard to read, in Google and other archives.

> B) Top posting...WHY WASTE THE SPACE.  Worse, I have a huge problem 
> scrolling to the bottom, move up, read down, scroll up a chunk, read 
> down, scroll back up...hint: if I don't know about something later 
> despite your three or four pages of quoted top posted crap you forwarded 
> me, it's because I deleted it.

     Amen to that, too.  Keep it readable, top to bottom.  Others will 
have to read what transpired (that's the value of these conversations) 
so keep it easy on them.  Post like this.


> C) I don't need a constant reminder of who you are in your messages; 
> place a link to a website with all your info if need be.  I get 
> downright p@#%sed off when your sig is bigger than that content you 
> added to the message.  See "mental fart" above.

     Anything but the message, and your response to it, is garbage, yeah.

> D) Why the stupid "legalese" sigs people have slapped into messages? 
> Can any produce ONE CASE where it was legally enforceable? It's stupid 
> to put in anything about "we're not liable for potential viruses in this 
> message". 

    Yeah, it, too, is garbage.

> E) STOP STICKING DANCING SMILIES AND GIFS AND JPGS INTO YOUR MAILS. 
> Newsflash.  Not all mail clients display them the same way.  

     I blame AOL, really; there's no need to 'fancy up' email. It just 
causes problems.

> F) Yes, word wrapping length annoys people.  Usually, I find, the crowds 
> using older-style editors on the console are most vocal about this.  New 
> idea.  We need an automated filter that will rewrap messages at a 
> specified length.  This is one of the few things that don't really 
> irritate me so much.

    Yeah, Microsoft-posted email tend to be that way; I'm on Thunderbird 
these days, but line-wrap is a big deal, though most people don't know 
they're making 345-character lines...I can cope with it.

    The idea of a word-wrap filter isn't a bad idea; I'm thinking of a 
plugin to Postfix...a milter, perhaps?

> G) Is there a reason you need to email me in HTML?  Is it really wise, 
> when Window uses the same engine for rendering HTML email as it uses for 
> Explorer, with all it's wonderful security bugs and glitches, to treat 
> my email client as a web browser?  Let's just skip the steps in between. 

     Yeah, email is better as text, period.

> H) Don't bother with read receipt.  Use it inside your own organization 
> if you find it necessary.  I freely admit that it would be handy at 
> times for particular purposes.  Unfortunately for you, I set my client 
> to ignore it.  If I could I'd strip it out entirely.  Why?  Because it's 
> too easy for spammers to use it.  Duh.

     Yeah, I used one the other day...but it silly to use them, as policy.

> K) If you read this far, congratulations.  I have had plenty of educated 
> people complain that a message is just too long and they just can't read 
> that much.  I'll grant them that complaint to a point.  This does take 
> time to read.  Believe it or not, I had something to say, and it took 
> time to type out in a way that I hope is clear.

    Yeah, you did.  And I responded in polite-format, partly because I 
wanted to show people what you were talking about, but partly to say 
"GoodOnYa!" as your tuition makes the forum easier to read, and research.

> Or I'll get kicked off the list.

     I sure hope not; every once in a while, these words need spoken. 
This time was your turn.

-- 
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Brian Fahrländer                 Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
  Evansville, IN                              http://Fahrlander.net/brian
  ICQ: 5119262                         AOL/Yahoo/GoogleTalk: WheelDweller
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------