On 11/1/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think what really bothers me is that he's manipulating the listserv, > and all of its readers, by posting such a large advertisement in the > signature of his messages; we have to suffer it, and it also appears > in any archives for the listserv. Thereby giving the pyramid > scheme-esque hyperlinks credibility to search engine spiders, at the > expense of the credibility of the listserv itself. I think it is > extremely bad taste, regardless of what an RFC suggests. > > I'm requesting that the list maintainers please set a policy against > these kinds of things, with banishment as punishment. Please, let's > keep this thing on target and useful for GNU/Linux conversations. > > -jlf
For myself, while I think the long sig is silly looking and lowers my opinion of Ed (I mean, come on, the first two links ultimately lead to the same place), I don't think that it's so obscene that it requires new rules and threat of punishment to be enacted. He's had that wacky-ass signature for at least a year or so and it's never been a problem. I'm mostly disappointed with how this conversation started, It's possible he might have shortened/removed the sig on LUG posts if the initial request hadn't been so condescending and rude. How does that make the LUG look? -- John D. Mort http://john.mort.net _______________________________________________ Mid-Hudson Valley Linux Users Group http://mhvlug.org http://mhvlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mhvlug Upcoming Meetings (6pm - 8pm) MHVLS Auditorium Oct 3 - Security and Privacy Nov 7 - Django Python Application Framework
