David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I knew there was a Request for Comment associated with that bit of
> netiquette. Could'nt remember which one and was too lazy to look it up ;-)
>
There is (or was) a line length recommendation too. I think it was 65
characters although most clients seem to wrap at 72.