Organization: Galaxy Information System (GIS) Atlanta, Ga
Lines: 74
Dateline Thu, 17/Dec92 13:44.
In , UUCP of Jim.Greenlee@cc.gatech.edu wrote to All at 1:133/411,
U> I don't know about the first point, but as far as the second
U> is concerned, I believe it's a matter of the *length* of
U> the signature. The "accepted" length of a signature file
U> on USENET is four lines - at some sites this is enforced
U> by restrictions built into the news software itself. Four
U> lines is usually sufficient to provide some personal
U> information about the poster (full name, E-mail/postal
U> address, phone number, etc). Some people also add a
U> clever aphorism.
As I have stated, this particular signature must also provide information of a gateway, information that is usually not accurately reflected in an X-header.
U> I don't know what the "accepted" practices are on FIDO-Net -
U> if they want to use 20 line signatures on their posts,
U> then more power to them. But if Mr. Deitch is going to
U> gateway stuff onto the Internet, then he should respect
U> its customs ("when in Rome ...").
In FidoNet, signatures are not used at all. It is precisely because this site acts as a gateway between vastly different electronic messaging systems that this information must be contained in the signature. It has been so for three years.
U> Somehow, I don't think an ASCII graphic of a dog with his
U> supper dish qualifies as "FidoNet network routing
U> information". I could be wrong though ...
I have worked the signature both ways - it would still require more than 4 lines to present all the necessary information in a reasonable format. If you feel you can do better, please send me a suggestion. I am always open to constructive suggestions.
U> There is nothing wrong with this - I'm a native Atlantan
U> myself (32 years and counting). But it does seem kind of
U> pointless to post local weather information on a local
U> newsgroup. I think it would be a safe assumption that
U> people with direct access to the atl.* groups also have
U> some reasonable way of determining what the current
U> weather conditions are (sticking my head out the window
U> works for *me* :-).
Any more pointless for someone else to have asked...
U> The original message was posted from California (presumably
U> by someone who is planning a trip to this area and wants
U> to know what to pack). An E-mailed response is probably a
U> better choice in that situation.
Then they might have asked for an e-mail response. Just as some FidoNet information is lost in UUCP message headers, some UUCP information is lost on the FidoNet side. Had I known the identity of the sending site, I might have come to the same conclusion you have, but the information I had available did not make that clear.
UUCP Gateways have been around for more than 5 years, and this one has been operating for three. I am contstantly trying to increase its quality through improves software and more complete services. Users now have the ability to create their own signatures in place of the default gateway signature. In addition, I have worked to solve more technical problems by developing my own programs to meet needs not met by existing gateway software.
Now the post that started this chain did not attempt to constructively point out problems with the gateway. It clearly stereotyped FidoNet gateway users as egotists and maligned the presence and use of this gateway, rather than pointing out problems and suggesting improvements.
I have been told by a couple of friends that my first impression is not an accurate characterization, and I am willing to accept their judgement. I am a full-fledged UUCP site administrator and am always willing to accept and evaluate constructive criticism.
Some of the problems that have been pointed out I was already aware of and am working to find solutions. Other problems, such as the line length problem, had not been made aware to me, and I will endeavor to solve them as well. Like the economy, it will not be fixed over night, but when things are brought to my attention, they are addressed.
All I ask is that you separate technical issues from political issues. The post here came across as an attack against FidoNet, gateways, and users. I look forward to putting the whole circumstance behind me and working with the Atlanta FidoNet and UUCP community to resolve any future problems in a professional and constructive maner.
This is the last I will post publicly of this matter, closing with a sincere apology if this or any other post from my gateway causes harm to your system. It is not intentional, and once I am aware, I will work hard to prevent any recurrence.
