Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:32:08 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>
>> From: "Stephen Wolstenholme"<steve@npsl1.com>
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:04:32 -0600, VanguardLH<V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Many people won't watch either threads.
>>>>
>>>> Especially when using a deliberately vague Subject header.
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Neural network software applications, help and support.
>>>> <snipped rest of spam signature>
>>>>
>>>> Please don't spam.
>>>
>>> It's within my signature and my signature conforms with "standards"
>>> available when I started on Usenet about 25 years ago. I'm not going
>>> to change now!
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>> Actually I believe the "standards" are for 4 lines or less. However I am
>> not one to quibble about two extra lines. I have certainly seen worse and
>> VanguardLH is a wee bit overzealous on this subject matter.
>>
>
> Despite me saying that I'm not changing my signature, I have removed
> the description line so it's now four lines. Now it's just application
> names and URL's. I'll risk the lack of description. Can you remember
> if there was ever any mention of spaces and line length in the
> "standard"?

Nope, proper delimiter and no more than four lines - that's it.

RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995


- If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb
is no longer than 4 lines. Remember that many people pay for
connectivity by the minute, and the longer your message is,
the more they pay.