AM>> The next thing is that no-one is *telling* you not to use the
AM>> signature that *you* like. But there is one very logical issue here. I
AM>> would assume that you include a signature for your readers to
AM>> understand right and not simply for you to admire. If they don't
AM>> understand it, then why include it? Frankly, if I were in your place,
AM>> I'd thank the readership for indicating to me that my signature is
AM>> coming across as unreadable gibberish because that's clearly not my
AM>> intention. Is it yours?
If I read the string of mails correctly the many remarks / cinmplaints
werent about the contents of the signature but mainly that receivered
didnt have a clue what it meant due to all of us using different
fonts.
And explaining it in a poem doesnt help as the same fonts will show
every character as it was in the signature...
It was a nice short signature, just that almost nobody could read it(g)
Best regards,
tracer
Using theBAT 1.39 with Windows 98
mail to : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am using FireTalk: 321338
ICQ: on request
Website: www.phuketcomputers.com
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
