[Scmail] Re: Webmail down?

[Will Wilkinson]

In message <fcmcac$1l3$1 at news.spamcop.net>, Pop 
<nodoby at devnull.spamcop.net> writes
>Will Wilkinson wrote:
>...
>> My .sig was only 5 lines, hardly "ridiculously" long, and would have
>> fitted in 4 unformatted. Now reduced to 4 anyway. You're the first to
>> ever comment after at least 5 years posting in various newsgroups.
>
>I owe you an apology.  I do have to apologize:  Usenet guidelines, as I now
>realize, are different from e-mail.  While I personally object to such a
>long sig, it's irrelevant since, on closer inspection the sig is indeed
>acceptable and I jumped the gun by complaining.  Sigs for usenet in general
>are very lax unless the particular newsgroup has their own guidelines, which
>I don't think SC does.
>
>The only ref I used was:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_block#E-mail_and_Usenet
>but there is disputed neutrality,
>and I don't wish to debate this at all.  Let's just say the end of my nose
>should have been chopped off.
>
>OH well; learned something today; maybe I should go back to bed!
>
>Pop`
>
>
No problem - I didn't take offence, just found it a bit strange that 
after several years of usenet postings someone should complain. I find 
it a bit strange that the lines wrapped though - my line length seems to 
be shorter than your replies. IMO there were only 2 lines that were 
generally irrelevant (one that I've removed as it really was redundant) 
as I do sometimes PGP sign posts to usenet and mailing lists (same .sig 
used for both in some cases). I also feel that by including my PGP 
fingerprint in all posts it makes that fingerprint slightly more useful 
as it's possible to check back several years and see that it hasn't 
changed.

Will
-- 
e-mail news dot will at lancre dot net
'98 300Tdi Defender 110 CSW, 1/12th NB Sometimes
PGP Fingerprint E089 1736 A023 9E5C AFA3  0B40 E5DC D80A 9E1F D521
Public key can be obtained from ldap://certserver.pgp.com