In article <9011201316.AA12333 at genbank.bio.net> PARED%EMDUAM51 at PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU writes:
>... essential points about the signature of the sender.
>i) How complete it must be, in order to inambiguously identify the sender?
>ii) Can it contain commercial, political, religious or tendencious annotations?
> Well, I am posting my own ".sig" as "one" example of what it could be
> a complete and non-offending signature. "I hope"!.
Another important criterion is that it be brief. Both network capacity
and readers' time can be burdened by overly long signatures.
> As it can be deduced easily , I believe that signature must be as much
> informative as possible and, at the same time, addition of any "non-offending"
> annotation could be pleasant, charming, friendly and recommendable.
"as much informative as possible" is not needed. Only enough information
as needed to be unambiguous, and to allow reaching the poster is needed.
A *little* bit more can be enjoyable, but must be balanced against space
taken in *every* posting. Also note that some information is already
present in the heading, and that return e-mail can be used to obtain
other details if needed.
> But, in any case, the most important (or actually the only important)
> part of the mails it is not the signature but the content.
Agreed, but note that a signature larger than the content is distracting,
as well as wasteful.
> Juan A. Ayala
[rest of 23 line signature deleted]
--henry schaffer n c state univ