I voted "No," because I used to use dial-up for about x10 years, and signature sizes don't really matter all that much. People don't care about time consumption. It takes 5 minutes to check your e-mail on dial-up and maybe 2 minutes tops (reading time) to check it on DSL/Cable/Satellite/etc. My point though, is that it really doesn't make much of a difference. And I highly doubt there's anybody else out there (other than me) who's using an EGA/VGA monitor with a tiny resolution size. So size really shouldn't matter.

But that's just my opinion (I like saying that).

I don't really understand what you're getting at, and I don't really understand what the e-mail meant, but thanks for your opinion.

This change isn't really so people can figure out what size their signature is, if that's what you were getting at. It's more so that people know exactly
how many bytes are in a kilobyte, so they don't make any mistakes.

Bump (24 hours later).

no from me, it says the kb when i check so i wouldnt need... and why would you report a sig a few hundred bytes over the limit?

This is for people who don't actually know how many bytes there are in a KB.
If you looked at a signature and it said 70,000 bytes, you may think that means 70 KB, therefore, over the limit,
but it'd really be a little bit under 70 KB, therefore NOT breaking the rules.

And because it's still violating the rules. Imagine if everyone had a signature that were just a few KB over the limit..
it would equal up to a lot of KB over the limit, which would cause the site to load slower. Regardless of how badly someone is breaking the rules,
they are still breaking them.

Bump (24 hours later).

Bump (24 hours later).

Idk what this is but i voted yes

Bump (24 hours later).

Bump (24 hours later).