On 27/05/2023 8:42 pm, albert wrote:
> In article <u4rr6o$90tj$1@dont-email.me>, dxforth <dxforth@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 26/05/2023 4:13 pm, John Hart wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 8:09:29 PM UTC-7, dxforth wrote:
>>>> On 26/05/2023 6:22 am, John Hart wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Reality is an information process, set in motion and sustained by God for a purpose.
>>>>> Until we know the purpose, we are like ships without rudders, wandering aimlessly
>>>>> until we sink.
>>>
>>> Just wondering. Are comments on a signature, good forum etiquette?
>>
>> I'm unaware of any netiquette stating signatures are one-way communications.
>> That would make them propaganda.
>>
>
> I guess you could comment on signatures provided they are quotes by
> '>' characters.

According to RFC1855 the original purpose of signatures was:

- Make things easy for the recipient. Many mailers strip header information which
includes your return address. In order to ensure that people know who you are,
be sure to include a line or two at the end of your message with contact information.
You can create this file ahead of time and add it to the end of your messages.
(Some mailers do this automatically.) In Internet parlance, this is known as a
".sig" or "signature" file. Your .sig file takes the place of your business card.
(And you can have more than one to apply in different circumstances.)

Contact details are hardly content and therefore don't require comment. Today's
use of sigs, however, is primarily about attracting attention. That makes it
content additional to what is in the body of the message. If one is free to an
express an idea in public, then it's a matter of freedom to be able to discuss it.