On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 11:52:31AM -0600, will trillich wrote: > short version: > why not have your .signature reflect which debian you're using? > > long version: > > i've noticed that occasionally someone who uses, say, potato, > asks for advice and information, and the answers some from > another debianista using, say, woody. much of the time this is > not a problem, but then there's the occasional situation where > the woody (or sid) system has something that potato (or woody) > doesn't. and neither asker nor responder indicate which systems > they're using.
Will, missing relevant data in problem reports and responses is certainly a pain as you indicate, but I think it's better to try to educate novice posters on submitting good, informative reports on a per case basis rather than trying to implement your .signature remedy. Why? 1) You simply won't get enough people to change their .sigs to make this useful. The .sig for a lot of old hands on the Net is an expression of their personalities: you'd have as much luck in trying to persuade them to change their hair styles, manner of dress, or favorite soft drink. 2) There are a lot of people who just mentally filter out the .sig as noise. I've been on the Net since, oh, '97, and within a month I had pretty much stopped looking at .sig blocks. I rarely look at them now unless they are BIG or otherwise eye-catchingly ugly. It would be the last place I would look for information relevant to a problem report. This "ignore-sig-block" habit is so ingrained I doubt that I could train myself to consistently look at list .sigs unless I used Pavlov/high-voltage-electroshock conditioning. I'm deeply sympathetic to novices on the list (I'm one of them!), but not enough to run current through myself to alter a reflex. You've identified a real problem, but I think your fix is unworkable. Cordially, Mark S. Reglewski .sig-less by choice and habit
