RE: [OT] Re: CML2 1.3.1, aka "I stick my neck out a mile..."

RE: [OT] Re: CML2 1.3.1, aka "I stick my neck out a mile..."

[Leif Sawyer]

Jeff Garzik writes:
> Does anybody have a procmail recipe that filters out e-mail to
> linux-kernel that contain ridiculously long .sigs?
> -- 
> Jeff Garzik      | Game called on account of naked chick


Oh for fsck's sake.  You've now wasted 1000x more bandwidth bitching
about sig length than the the actual sig used up.

Get a life.  Ignore that which displeases you.  Ignorance is bliss.
You are no longer a republican.  Eat your vegatables.

Just stop whining about ESR's sigs already.


And now back to your regularly scheduled kernel hacking.


(woo! sluggy freelance. poing!)

#insert <longsig.h>
--
Leif Sawyer   --  Pi@4398680
leif@gci.net  ||  lsawyer@gci.com  ||  internic: LS2540 
(907) 868 - 0116   ||  ICQ - 3749190  || http://home.gci.net/~leif
Network Engineer -- General Communication Inc.
PGP Fingerprint: 77 C8 34 B8 FD BC C6 32  5F FE 93 4B AE 6C F7 4E
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GAT d+ s: a C+++(++)$ US++++$ UL++++$ P+++ L++(+++) E---
W+++ N+ o+ K w O- M- V PS+ PE Y+ PGP(+) t+@ 5- X R- tv b++(+++)
DI++++ D++ G+ e(+)* h-- r++ y+ PP++++ HH++++ A19 NT{--}
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Decode it! http://www.ebb.org/ungeek/

Re: [OT] Re: CML2 1.3.1, aka "I stick my neck out a mile..."

[Jeff Garzik]

Leif Sawyer wrote:
> Oh for fsck's sake.  You've now wasted 1000x more bandwidth bitching
> about sig length than the the actual sig used up.

Nope, between esr's sigs and your geek code block+sig+stuff, we are
still playing catch-up...  More posting to do!

-- 
Jeff Garzik      | Game called on account of naked chick
Building 1024    |
MandrakeSoft     |

Re: [OT] Re: CML2 1.3.1, aka "I stick my neck out a mile..."

[Rik van Riel]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> Does anybody have a procmail recipe that filters out e-mail to
> linux-kernel that contain ridiculously long .sigs?
> --
> Jeff Garzik      | Game called on account of naked chick 
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Why that? I see you too support the right to bare arms ;)

Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy)

[OT] Re: CML2 1.3.1, aka "I stick my neck out a mile..."

[Jeff Garzik]

Does anybody have a procmail recipe that filters out e-mail to
linux-kernel that contain ridiculously long .sigs?
-- 
Jeff Garzik      | Game called on account of naked chick
Building 1024    |
MandrakeSoft     |

[OT] Re: CML2 1.3.1, aka "I stick my neck out a mile..."

[Jeff Garzik]

"Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> Actually, Al is sort of half-right here.  There used to be a 4-lines-or-less
> convention on USENET, back in the days when bandwidth was expensive.  I
> adhered to it then, because it mattered.
> 
> Nowadays it doesn't -- at least not at that level.  Huge sigs with
> embedded ASCII graphics and the like are still best avoided, but merely
> because they're tasteless and distracting.
> 
> I don't think I've heard anyone invoke the 4-line rule since about
> 1992, though.  I didn't start generating short random quotes into my sig
> until about 1996, well after the "standard" was effectively dead.

The 4-line rule is still being invoked all the time, and written into
college netiquette guides for students, things like that.  The standard
has never been "effectively dead" except in the sense that it always has
been:  clueless AOLers ignore it, clueful netiquette followers follow
it.

Read item #15:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/gnksa.txt


> Despite the demise of the 4-line standard, I have a pretty definite
> impression that the average size of sigs actually dropped in the 1990s.
> The main thing that formerly inflated a lot of them was the need to
> list multiple bang-path addresses and other forms of contact info.
> Reliable @-addressing pretty much eliminated that pressure.
> 
> Even back in its day this "rule" was frequently abused as a socially
> acceptable way to attack people whose opinions or style one disliked.

frequently abused, yes.  socially acceptable?  doubtful.

-- 
Jeff Garzik      | Game called on account of naked chick
Building 1024    |
MandrakeSoft     |