Re: Question on device driver ? [OT]

Walter Roberson said:

In article <xN-dnXda-cpCFmzbnZ2dnUVZ8qeknZ2d@xxxxxx>,
Richard Heathfield <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Walter Roberson said:

In article <VsadnXdb_eshGGzbRVnyiAA@xxxxxx>,
Richard Heathfield <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

but if we're talking RFCs, Chuck's sig is in excess of four lines; this
is a clear violation of RFC 1855, as has been pointed out to him on
sufficiently many occasions that he should have taken the hint by now.

"Rule of thumb", not "MUST".

Indeed. Nobody is forcing Chuck to change his sig. Nobody is saying
"must".

Richard, you said, and I quote, "this is in clear violation of RFC 1855".
What part of RFC 1855 is it in "clear" violation of? Be specific.

I already quoted the only relevant portion of RFC 1855 that -I-
could find, and there is no "clear violation" of that section, because
that section only discusses a "rule of thumb" value, not a firm value.
But you wrote "clear violation", so either you were wrong in that
statement and the violation (if that is what it is) is *not* "clear"
or else you had some other section of RFC 1855 in mind.

No, that's certainly the bit I had in mind. Mea culpa - evidently it wasn't
quite as clear to others as I had thought. But I think Chuck is the only
regular contributor to this group who does not observe the four-line sig
block. If we can squeeze our sigs into four lines, surely he can too?


But by refusing to observe this rule (which, as I understand it, is
specifically designed to make Usenet cheaper for those people who are
still on dialup), he loses any moral high ground from which he might
reasonably criticise netiquette in others.

There -are- people still on dialup for Usenet, but I have to question
whether the amount of extra data transmitted with respect to
the terranews portion of Chuck's postings has amounted to anywhere
near the verbage we have expended in discussing the issue -- or
discussing ells and the like. Chuck isn't exactly the most verbose
poster around, nor the most frequent. (Now, *I* would be in
contention for the most verbose; though not the most frequent in -this-
newsgroup.)

Oh, I know it's a minor thing; of course it is. So are many of the
violations Chuck complains about, many of which are also not actually
violations of any particular rule, but rather of conventions that have
been established over the years.

Incidentally, here's an interesting quote from 1 Jan 2004, on a newsgroup
named comp.lang.c, from a certain CBFalconer: "Would it be too much to ask
you to remove the PGP signature and the general oversized sig block
(exceeds 4 lines)."

I rest my case.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
.

Relevant Pages
Loading