Re: My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?)

Your sig is fine, anyone who says otherwise needs to obtain gainful employment to occupy more free time On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 8:36 PM James R Cutler wrote: > --- amitch...@isipp.com wrote: > From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." > > [This .sig space open to suggestions.] > > Just to continue this cl

My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?)

--- amitch...@isipp.com wrote: From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." mailto:amitch...@isipp.com>> [This .sig space open to suggestions.] Just to continue this clearly trivial discussion: I enjoy your signature. It always leaves no question regarding the posting identity.

Re: My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?)

--- amitch...@isipp.com wrote: From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." [This .sig space open to suggestions.] --- I don't really care about your .sig, but in general... %s/\[This .sig space open to suggestions.\]//g scott

Re: My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?)

I respect the viewpoints of those who made comments about your sig, but I do not agree. There are many things to be annoyed about. I don’t think your email signature is one of them. On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 17:16 Ross Tajvar wrote: > I want to clarify that while I didn't say anything (since it w

Re: My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?)

I want to clarify that while I didn't say anything (since it wasn't on-topic in the other thread), I also found the long signature annoying. I did not read it beyond the first 1-2 lines. I expect many more than the few people who spoke up share this opinion. While I don't feel it's appropriate for

Re: My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?)

Oops..sorry to follow up on myself (and before anybody says anything about this, sorry/not sorry for top-posting - it's on myself after all)..but I'd meant to include this: Case in point: This very (original) thread, about Packetstream - if I had just posted the original thread, about how it'

My .sig (Was Re: Packetstream - how does this not violate just about every provider's ToS?)

Apparently, after many, many years of using essentially the same .sig here, it is now an issue of contention. (Well, 3 people probably does not contention make, but still...). However, as one person decided I was trying to market myself, let me address why I have all of that info in there: Pr