 |
 |
On Tue, 03 Dec 1996 23:39:09 +0100, Iain L M Hotchkies wrote: >In message <[log in to unmask]> you wrote: > >> There was some debate here a week or so ago about whether sigs are seen as >> unaccepatble advertising or useful information about the poster. >> >> Was a concensus reached - and if so what was it? > >That anyone posting a message with a sig more than >five characters long should be tied down with soiled >latex gloves and have a flexible sigmoidoscope I didn't think it was THAT kind of list -- [log in to unmask] Don't know about PGP? Point your browser to: http://www.ncinter.net/~rewilson/PGPClick/ WARNING: The return email address field has been altered to foil bulk email spammers. If you reply to this message please remove the * from the end of the return address or it'll bounce. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%