In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He refered to:
>
> <http://www.gnksa.org/gnksa.txt> (version 1.2)
>
> I refered to:
>
> <http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/index.html> 2.0.
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/> is a mirror of <http://www.gnksa.org/>.
<http://www.gnksa.org/gnksa.txt> is the actual GNKSA (2.08) document.
> Scroll down to near the bottom of the page. It specfies line length and
> number of lines for signatures.
It doesn't "specify" limits, it mentions a common limit as a
/guideline/. Whether or not a particular program uses the common
limits or establishes it's own is up to the developer(s).
> and I quote directly from GNKSA2 document:
> ---------------
> 15) Separate signatures correctly, and don't use excessive ones
>
> Posting software SHOULD separate any signature appended to outgoing
> articles from the main text with a line containing only `-- ' ("dash
> dash space"). To quote son-of-rfc1036:
>
> <<If a poster or posting agent does append a signature to an
> article, the signature SHOULD be preceded with a delimiter
> line containing (only) two hyphens (ASCII 45) followed by
> one blank (ASCII 32). Posting agents SHOULD limit the
> length of signatures, since verbose excess bordering on
> abuse is common if no restraint is imposed; 4 lines is a
> common limit.>>
>
> Hence, posting software SHOULD prevent the user from using excessively
> long signatures, or at least warn the user against it. A widely
> accepted standard is the so-called McQuary limit: up to 4 lines, each up
> to a maximum of 80 characters.
I have personally done an evaluation where I passed the program on 15b,
where the McQuary limit wasn't used.
As I said the McQ limit is a baseline -- it is a boundary where the
gray area called "excess" begins. When I am doing evaluations I use 3
times McQ as the other end of the boundary (allows more than 12 lines
or 960 characters before warning, then it will fail this item,
regardless of any warnings it might give on even larger sigs [although,
I would of course report it in the comment section if I was made aware
of such a warning]).
To put it a different way -- since it is considered desirable to avoid
excessively large sigs, it is necessary to decide exactly what that is.
But different people disagree on the exact numbers. No one argues with
not including a sig and almost no one argues that sigs of 10gigabytes
are excessive. So, where to draw the line...well, the McQ limit has
generally been accepted, so it can be used as a guide line, if it meets
the McQ limit then it should clearly be considered OK, becoming less OK
as it moves farther away from the McQ limit and closer to that 10gig
that everyone agrees is terrible.
Or to put it yet another way -- if someone complains about your sig
when it meets the McQ limit, tell them to FOAD, if it is 2 times the
McQ limit say "sorry, I like it and don't intend to change", if it's
more than 3 times the McQ limit, you should either change it or be
aware that people (and not just me) will killfile you for it, as it
will interfere with their ability to enjoy reading your messages.
--
J.B. Moreno
