I got a mail from Scottish Widows recently (an investment company). Their email signature and disclaimer was 68 (sixty-eight) lines long.
This is certainly a record for a real email signature that I've received. Has anyone received a longer one?
I tend to use Zen and the Art of the Internet as a guide, published January 1992.
For a usenet signature (and generally people use the same for both email and usenet), the guide recommends four lines maximum. Also the signature should be preceded by the four characters dash-dash-space-newline thus:
"-- "
(without the quotes)
So at 68 lines, I think Scottish Widows are a tad on the long side. Can anyone beat this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
Find me on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/siliconglen/ Medium https://siliconglen.medium.com/ thanks Craig
-
An article on how Agile can sit alongside PRINCE2 and where DSDM Atern fits in. In 2007, I put "used an Agile/PRINCE2 development str...
-
I've been having a busy time over on the Cambrian House site lately. Check out my profile and the full set of awards I completed last ...
-
Having been on hold to the Orange contact centre (I guess that's what you would call it, I might call it a non-contact centre) for appro...
-
Every time I go to the post office there's a queue. No matter how much they try and keep the queue length down, inevitably you get stuck...
-
It has always surprised me that in the US, where holidays are valued and children get about 6 weeks more annual holiday than the UK, that ad...
-
Dyson's motto is "100% suction all the time" or "The vacuum that doesn't lose suction". The consumers' assoc...
-
In contrast to my usual relaxed drive to work I was on the motorway today. Tailgaiting seems to have got worse. It's not enough to be ...
-
I thought I would write this to document the ongoing problems I have with my Nokia N97. It seems from the conversation in the phone shop tod...
-
Your profile indicates you have been contracting recently, therefore you will only be interested in contract work then? Incorrect. Thi...
No comments:
Post a Comment