Re: Are signatures with URLs considered spam?

• Previous message: Hairy One Kenobi: "Re: Banned URL"
• In reply to: Nick: "Are signatures with URLs considered spam?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:29:08 +0000

Nick wrote:
> I understand the point of using URLs as a reference to a certain subject
> being discussed, but using a signature with (many)URLs in_every_post, isn't
> it some kind of advertising (spam)?
>
> Thanks
>
> Nick

How can a single "href" type URL in an e-mail sig possibly be regarded
as SPAM?

I can understand that ISPs have to take a view, because they may (or may
not) intercept many SPAM mails in connection with that URL.

But, FFS, hot under the collar, or what! A URL in a sig file is going to
consume, what - about 100 BYTES for the link, plus maybe another 50
BYTES for the description = total 150 BYTES.

Now, I don't personally call that SPAM! If people are stoopid enough to
follow the link and get a shed-load of trouble, that is their problem.

As far as I am concerned, SPAM is a full heads-up e-mail about teen-sex,
viagra, politics, whatever that lands in my REAL e-mail In Box that I
don't want, and never requested!

I have followed a number of `sig file' URLs off this and other
discussion groups, and found much interesting and useful information
(thanks, Jim), but *that was my choice*.

I guess it comes down to `Big Brother Is Watching You' - and I don't
particularly like any form of `Big Brother' watching me....

Steve

• Previous message: Hairy One Kenobi: "Re: Banned URL"
• In reply to: Nick: "Are signatures with URLs considered spam?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]