On Sun, 10 Jan 93 20:29:47 EST, nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Chael Hall) said:
E.> I can imagine it, but none exist. This is mostly because the From: ^^^^^^^^^^^ E.> field is supplied by the mailer and satisfies that requirement, E.> whereas requiring things in teh body of the mail message goes against E.> the grain of how the systems are used. *Bzzzzt* Wrong answer, thank you for playing. The public access bbs system running out of Chapel Hill, automatically appends the same signature to all outgoing messages, and other sites are considering the same measures.
Chael> I think what he's saying is that a signature that identifies which Chael> *user* on the system as well as the system name does not exist. I'm Chael> sure there are a couple, but I agree with your point that most BBS's on Chael> any mail network append an identifying "tagline" or signature. As a Chael> matter of fact, in many nets it is a requirement that your system append Chael> a tagline to all messages. Incidentally, it is preceded often by "--" Chael> on a line by itself. Evidently I mis-interpreted his exact meaning in his statement, but if I remember correctly, wasn't one of the original mail messages along this line stating that any mail system which included a signature or identification automatically was broken? The point being is this is a common example of how this is used, and that if an anonymous poster comes from such a site, his sig would close the search area greatly if not removed. So this appears to me to be a good point in favor of signature stripping. Chael> Chael Hall Chael> -- Chael> Chael Hall Chael> nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu, 00CCHALL@LEO.BSUVC.BSU.EDU, CHALL@CLSV.Charon.BSU.Edu Chael> (317) 285-3648 after 3 pm EST CrysRides