See also
At the end of most articles is a small blurb called a person's
signature. In Unix this file is named .signature in the
person's login directory---it will vary for other operating systems.
It exists to provide information about how to get in touch with the
person posting the article, including their email address, phone
number, address, or where they're located. Even so, signatures have
become the graffiti of computers. People put song lyrics, pictures,
philosophical quotes, even advertisements in their ``.sigs''.
(Note, however, that advertising in your signature will more often
than not get you flamed until you take it out.)
Four lines will suffice---more is just extra garbage for Usenet sites to carry along with your article, which is supposed to be the intended focus of the reader. Netiquette dictates limiting oneself to this ``quota'' of four---some people make signatures that are ten lines or even more, including elaborate ASCII drawings of their hand-written signature or faces or even the space shuttle. This is not cute, and will bother people to no end.
Similarly, it's not necessary to include your signature---if you forget to append it to an article, don't worry about it. The article's just as good as it ever would be, and contains everything you should want to say. Don't re-post the article just to include the signature.
If mail to a person doesn't make it through, avoid posting the message to a newsgroup. Even if the likelihood of that person reading the group is very high, all of the other people reading the articles don't give a whit what you have to say to Jim Morrison. Simply wait for the person to post again and double-check the address, or get in touch with your system administrator and see if it's a problem with local email delivery. It may also turn out that their site is down or is having problems, in which case it's just necessary to wait until things return to normal before contacting Jim.
In the interests of privacy, it's considered extremely bad taste to post any email that someone may have sent, unless they explicitly give you permission to redistribute it. While the legal issues can be heavily debated, most everyone agrees that email should be treated as anything that are carried with it.
Many people, particularly new users, want to try out posting before
actually taking part in discussions. Often the mechanics of getting
messages out is the most difficult part of Usenet. To this end, many,
many users find it necessary to post their tests to ``normal'' groups
(for example, news.admin or comp.mail.misc). This is
considered a major netiquette faux pas in the Usenet world.
There are a number of groups available, called test groups, that
exist solely for the purpose of trying out a news system, reader, or
even new signature. They include
alt.test misc.test nlnet.test
some of which will generate auto-magic replies to your posts to
let you know they made it through. There are certain denizens of
Usenet that frequent the test groups to help new users out. They
respond to the posts, often including the article so the poster can
see how it got to the person's site. Also, many regional hierarchies
have test groups, like ruunet.test in the RUU.
By all means, experiment and test---just do it in its proper place.
Every once in a while, someone says that a celebrity is accessible
through ``The Net''; or, even more entertaining, an article is forged
to appear to be coming from that celebrity. One example is Stephen
Spielberg---the rec.arts.movies readership was in an uproar for
two weeks following a couple of posts supposedly made by Mr.
Spielberg. (Some detective work revealed it to be a hoax.)
There are a few well-known people that are acquainted with Usenet and computers in general---but the overwhelming majority are just normal people. One should act with skepticism whenever a notable personality is ``seen'' in a newsgroup.
Authors of articles occasionally say that readers should reply by mail and they'll summarize. Accordingly, readers should do just that---reply via mail. Responding with a followup article to such an article defeats the intention of the author. She, in a few days, will post one article containing the highlights of the responses she received. By following up to the whole group, the author may not read what you have to say.
When creating a summary of the replies to a post, try to make it as reader-friendly as possible. Avoid just putting all of the messages received into one big file. Rather, take some time and edit the messages into a form that contains the essential information that other readers would be interested in.
Also, sometimes people will respond but request to remain anonymous (one example is the employees of a corporation that feel the information's not proprietary, but at the same time want to protect themselves from political backlash). Summaries should honor this request accordingly by listing the From: address as anonymous or (Address withheld by request).
When following up to an article, many newsreaders provide the facility to quote the original article with each line prefixed by > , as in
In article <1232@foo.bar.com>, sharon@foo.bar.com wrote: > I agree, I think that basketweaving's really catching on, > particularly in Pennsylvania. Here's a list of every person > in PA that currently engages in it publicly: blah... blah... blah.
This is a severe example (potentially a horribly long article), but proves a point. When you quote another person, edit out article a better idea of what points you were addressing. By including the entire article, you'll only annoy those reading it. Also, signatures in the original aren't necessary; the readers already know who wrote it (by the attribution).
Avoid being tedious with responses---rather than pick apart an article, address it in parts or as a whole. Addressing practically each and every word in an article only proves that the person responding has absolutely nothing better to do with his time.
If a ``war'' starts (insults and personal comments get thrown back and forth), take it into email---exchange email with the person you're arguing with. No one enjoys watching people bicker incessantly.
The Newsgroups: line isn't limited to just one group---an article can be posted in a list of groups. For instance, the line
Newsgroups: sci.space,comp.simulation
posts the article to both the groups sci.space and
comp.simulation. It's usually safe to crosspost to up to three
or four groups. To list more than that is considered ``excessive
noise.''
It's also suggested that if an article is crossposted a Followup-To: header be included. It should name the group to which all additional discussion should be directed to. For the above example a possible Followup-To: would be
Followup-To: sci.space
which would make all followups automatically be posted to just
sci.space, rather than both sci.space and
comp.simulation. If every response made with a newsreader's
``followup'' command should go to the person posting the article no
matter what, there's also a mechanism worked in to accommodate. The
Followup-To: header should contain the single word
poster:
Followup-To: poster
Certain newsreaders will use this to sense that a reply should never be posted back onto The Net. This is often used with questions that will yield a summary of information later, a vote, or an advertisement.
One should avoid posting ``recent'' events---sports scores, a plane crash, or whatever people will see on the evening news or read in the morning paper. By the time the article has propagated across all of Usenet, the ``news'' value of the article will have become stale. (This is one case for the argument that Usenet news is
How you write and present yourself in your articles is important. If you have terrible spelling, keep a dictionary near by. If you have trouble with grammar and punctuation, try to get a book on English grammar and composition (found in many bookstores and at garage sales). By all means pay attention to what you say---it makes you who you are on The Net.
Likewise, try to be clear in what you ask. Ambiguous or vague questions often lead to no response at all, leaving the poster discouraged. Give as much essential information as you feel is necessary to let people help you, but keep it within limits. For instance, you should probably include the operating system of your computer in the post if it's needed, but don't tell everybody what peripherals you have hanging off of it.
The Subject: line of an article is what will first attract people to read it---if it's vague or doesn't describe what's contained within, no one will read the article. At the same time, Subject: lines that're too wordy tend to be irritating. For example:
Good
Good
Bad
Bad
Simply put, try to think of what will best help the reader when he or she encounters your article in a newsreading session.
Since common computers can't portray the inflection or tone in a person's voice, how articles are worded can directly affect the response to them. If you say
Anybody using a Vic-20 should go buy themselves a life.
you'll definitely get some responses---telling you to take a leap. Rather than be inflammatory, phrase your articles in a way that rationally expresses your opinion, like
What're the practical uses of a Vic-20 these days?
which presents yourself as a much more level-headed individual.
Also, what case (upper or lower) you use can indicate how you're trying to speak---netiquette dictates that if you USE ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, people will think you're ``shouting.'' Write as you would in a normal letter to a friend, following traditional rules of English (or whatever language you happen to speak).
No matter what kind of computer a person is using, theirs is always the best and most efficient of them all. Posting articles asking questions like What computer should I buy? An Atari ST or an Amiga? will lead only to fervent arguments over the merits and drawbacks of each brand. Don't even ask The Net---go to a local user group, or do some research of your own like reading some magazine reviews. Trying to say one computer is somehow better than another is a moot point.
External link
Restricted link, intranet
Powered by administrivia 0.1