Subject:
|
Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Sun, 1 Jun 2003 02:20:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2468 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Todd Lehman wrote:
<snip>
> Don't get me wrong, I agree the system should place -some- limit on the
> number of lines in a sig... I just don't want us to forget that what's
> acceptable is a *very* gray area and differs not only from person to person
> but also from group to group and from culture to culture.
It's not just a matter of lines, it's a matter of bandwidth consumed.
Consider this post:
http://news.lugnet.com/castle/?n=17003
The current "signature" is only 2 or so lines long (depending on how you count)
but has a 30K image in it. (to be fair, Richard wants to downsize it... but
apparently doesn't know how with his tools, and doesn't know how to do the
research *cough* google "free image resize tool" *cough* to find a free tool to
do so *cough* imagemagick *cough*... or just can't be bothered)
Guess I won't be checking LUGNET from airports much any more, until and unless a
one click way to disable FTX is offered, don't have time to wait around for 30K
images to come over the crufty airport phone lines.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
41 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
