 | | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) If the guidance was given in a way that was accepted by regulars as polite, getting 'rubbed the wrong way' would be entirely the fault of the person receiving the correction. I don't think we need to go out of our way to make LUGNET a (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) On a somewhat unrelated note, Todd, do you have plans to be able to save sigs? That would be a HUGE win to me. Jake --- Jake McKee Webmaster - BIP (URL) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Good one! I've been wishing for a feature like that for some time :-) I almost never use a sig, cause I post casually far more often than I do as a representative of a group or org. Another one could be -- with the membership overhaul, allow (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Yes, one per e-mail address. So you can have different sigs if you post from multiple addresses. --Todd (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Good plan, works for me :-) -Tim (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Sounds good. But make a clear limit on the number of charactars and/or lines. -- Kyle (URL) (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Also, with a signature feature implemented, people will probably be more inclined to use that than paste in each time. If it's not convenient for them to store more than x lines, they won't. So that will deter abuse as it is. -Tim (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) it will allow a different kind of abuse. If I put an image in my sig, I can track who's reading my posts - just like doubleclick.net. Not sure if people are worried about the privacy implecations. Dan (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Hmm interesting. I can't think of anything really evil to do with that info though... is it a big deal if others know if you read their LUGNET posts? -Tim (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Suggestions on limit values? Standard sig size according to RFC 1855 (URL) 4 lines -- but that's a "rule of thumb" and not something written in stone (I think 'rn' or some other newsreader I used once upon a time enforced it, however). I'm (...) (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) You can do that now by putting an image in you post --Orion (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) right - that was my point. The fact that you could put it in a sig is the same thing, only easier. Just wanted to point out something to consider when allowing inline images. Dan (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
(...) Of course in practice it wouldn't be a very effective way for someone to snoop because of image caching in clients. They'd log a few hits here and there but not likely enough for any meaningful tracking. --Todd (21 years ago, 31-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| |
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Todd Lehman wrote: <snip> (...) It's not just a matter of lines, it's a matter of bandwidth consumed. Consider this post: (URL) current "signature" is only 2 or so lines long (depending on how you count) but has a 30K (...) (21 years ago, 1-Jun-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
