[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Politics of Rmailers
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Jan 93 20:29:47 EST, [email protected] (Chael Hall) said:
>E.> I can imagine it, but none exist. This is mostly because the From:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>E.> field is supplied by the mailer and satisfies that requirement,
>E.> whereas requiring things in teh body of the mail message goes against
>E.> the grain of how the systems are used.
>*Bzzzzt* Wrong answer, thank you for playing. The public access bbs
>system running out of Chapel Hill, automatically appends the same signature
>to all outgoing messages, and other sites are considering the same measures.
Chael> I think what he's saying is that a signature that identifies which
Chael> *user* on the system as well as the system name does not exist. I'm
Chael> sure there are a couple, but I agree with your point that most BBS's on
Chael> any mail network append an identifying "tagline" or signature. As a
Chael> matter of fact, in many nets it is a requirement that your system append
Chael> a tagline to all messages. Incidentally, it is preceded often by "--"
Chael> on a line by itself.
Evidently I mis-interpreted his exact meaning in his statement, but if I
remember correctly, wasn't one of the original mail messages along this line
stating that any mail system which included a signature or identification
automatically was broken? The point being is this is a common example
of how this is used, and that if an anonymous poster comes from such a site,
his sig would close the search area greatly if not removed. So this
appears to me to be a good point in favor of signature stripping.
Chael> Chael Hall
Chael> --
Chael> Chael Hall
Chael> [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Chael> (317) 285-3648 after 3 pm EST
CrysRides