More questions on VFR flight following.

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:48:58 +0100, Martin Hotze
wrote in :

John Mazor schrieb:

I still find the commercial blurb in your sig objectionable,

hu?

a violation of the spirit if not the letter of UseNet
protocols, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree
on that.

no, this is NOT a violation. One might have Jay reduce his signature
down to *4* lines, but that's it. The content of a signature is almost
never topic of a discussion (unless one is out of arguments).

#m

While I tend to agree with you, it is not born out in these documents:
http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3676.txt

And the information provided by this pseudo Usenet expert isn't much
help at all: http://www.albion.com/netiquette/boo...702513p62.html

However there is a clue he
http://blog.entourage.mvps.org/2007/...netiquett.html

and he
http://www.answers.com/topic/mcquary...cat=technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlording
http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/signatur.html
http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/home/leagal/netguide/signat.txt

But I was unable to find mention of commercial content contained in
Usenet signatures mentioned in any of the reference articles during my
research of the subject with this exception:
http://www.sideroad.com/Netiquette/signature-files.html