Yo! Bill:
Thursday August 15 1996 19:49, Bill Funk wrote to Bill Cheek:
 BC>> Except that digital sigs are coming into vogue everywhere else.
 BF> They may be in vogue, but do they have anything to do with scanning?
 BF> It seems to me that if the post isn't coded, a decoding key is simply
 BF> not needed. As such, it becomes part of a signature line, and should
 BF> be limited as any other sig line. As I see it.
Let me play the devil's advocate for a moment.....which is what I have been 
doing anyway..........
If I wrote you a letter and you complained about my choice of letterhead and 
stationery, I'd wonder which horse you rode in on.
Likewise, if you bitched about my sig lines in an e-mail or netmail, I'd 
wonder about your gene pool.
Granted, there ARE differences between postal, e-mail, and echomail, but do 
any of those differences point to a specific reason to disallow digital sigs 
in echomail?
The movement of echomail is dirt cheap now.  A digital sig line will not add 
to the cost, such that it becomes a factor.  A few months ago, someone whined 
about mail volume based on his 2400-bps modem.  We can't make decisions based 
on the lowest common denominator, either.  Someone else made a case against 
mail volume based on his lack of time to read it all.  That's a personal 
problem.  Someone else mentioned a waste of bandwidth.  Well, 90% of all 
echomail is such a waste anyway....if you get technical about it.  A few 
lines of a digital signature may be "bandwidth", but the small percentage 
would be justified on the same merits as other alleged "wastes".
I will not make this decision based on cost, denominators, bandwidth, or 
personal issues.  Give me a substantial reason against, if you can.  I know 
there is a lot of disfavor.......but I can't "buy" much of the argument I've 
heard so far.  Gimme something I can sink my teeth into.
Bill Cheek | Internet: bcheek@cts.com | Compu$erve: 74107,1176
Windows 95 Juggernaut Team | Microsoft MVP
--- Hertzian Mail+
---------------